Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20

Category:United Kingdom intelligence agencies

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
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'

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
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

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
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

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
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
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

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
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

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
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

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
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

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

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
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

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
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

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

*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. Intothat darkness 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
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)

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

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

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
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"

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
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

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
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

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
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

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
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

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

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
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

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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_20&oldid=1079914917"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20

Category:United Kingdom intelligence agencies

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
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'

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
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

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
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

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
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
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

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
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

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
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

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
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

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

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
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

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
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

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

*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. Intothat darkness 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
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)

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

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

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
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"

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
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

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
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

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
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

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
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

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

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
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

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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_20&oldid=1079914917"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE