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

February 20

Category:Recipients of the Close Combat Clasp

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. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Does not meet WP:CATDEF as none of the subjects are notable for having received this decoration. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:22, 20 February 2017 (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 Honour Roll Clasp of the Army

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. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Does not meet WP:CATDEF, being a category for an obscure decoration. K.e.coffman ( talk) 11:44, 20 February 2017 (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.

English Football League (EFL)

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The Football League was renamed the English Football League (EFL) in 2016. Bbb2007 ( talk) 21:12, 20 February 2017 (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:Abbots by religion

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. – Fayenatic London 16:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, both this category and its parent category are very sparsely populated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:05, 20 February 2017 (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:History of Soviet Moldova

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. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, they have the same scope. They are not part of an established tree, other Soviet Socialist Republics don't have this distinction. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • In the end everything about a former country is history, but it's true that sometimes history by topic (e.g. geographic history) of a former country gets its own category. That happens mostly with long-lasting big former countries, not with former subdivions like nominated here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (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:Military personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht

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. – Fayenatic London 23:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category, with the "mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht" (Wehrmacht Report) often being cited to the collection the reports themselves. Does not meet WP:CATDEF, being an obscure and debatable award.
Previous discussion in 2014 closed as no consensus. Since then, several discussions on the relevance of the Wehrmachtbericht Report have taken place, for example, London Gazette vs Wehrmachtbericht, with the consensus being that the reports were unreliable propaganda. The transcripts have subsequently been removed from the articles.
The category itself is likewise not useful as none of the subjects are notable for having been mentioned in the report. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. Kierzek ( talk) 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The category is useful in identifying how and why the the Wehrmachtbericht was used. it is helpful to researchers in identifying the type of mentions. The Federal Archives of Germany, represented by Erich Murawski, have published a list of all 1,500+ people referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht. We have Categories that reference Dictionary of National Biography. We have categories that relate to sources, such as Category:Princeton University Press books .... I don't see the point in deleting it. Furthermore, deletion does not maintain a neutral point of view. Finally, (for now), the Wehrmachtbericht was an important information sources during WWII for the German population, at least for the military portion. We may not like what it said, we may not agree with what it said (today), but historically, it was said. We also cite other sources (1911 Britannica, for example) as categories auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Would a list article address your concerns. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:36, 24 February 2017 (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:Uncensored Japanese pornography

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. – Fayenatic London 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category appears to be a product of original research as the article one would expect to accompany the category (Uncensored Japanese pornography) does not exist. The topic in not covered in the article Pornography in Japan either. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, expansion of the sections Pornography in Japan#Censorship laws and Censorship_in_Japan#Pornography would be useful. It does not, however, change my view on the category itself; it's still based on OR and is non-defining. For the category to be sustainable we need reliable secondary sources that consistently describe the subjects in this way. This material within the articles is often cited to the film titles themselves, which I believe to be a classic definition of OR. Please see WP:CATDEF:
  • A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having...
K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:56, 21 February 2017 (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/2017_February_20&oldid=1074283526"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 19 February 21 >

February 20

Category:Recipients of the Close Combat Clasp

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. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Does not meet WP:CATDEF as none of the subjects are notable for having received this decoration. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:22, 20 February 2017 (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 Honour Roll Clasp of the Army

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. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Does not meet WP:CATDEF, being a category for an obscure decoration. K.e.coffman ( talk) 11:44, 20 February 2017 (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.

English Football League (EFL)

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The Football League was renamed the English Football League (EFL) in 2016. Bbb2007 ( talk) 21:12, 20 February 2017 (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:Abbots by religion

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. – Fayenatic London 16:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, both this category and its parent category are very sparsely populated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:05, 20 February 2017 (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:History of Soviet Moldova

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. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, they have the same scope. They are not part of an established tree, other Soviet Socialist Republics don't have this distinction. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • In the end everything about a former country is history, but it's true that sometimes history by topic (e.g. geographic history) of a former country gets its own category. That happens mostly with long-lasting big former countries, not with former subdivions like nominated here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (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:Military personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht

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. – Fayenatic London 23:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category, with the "mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht" (Wehrmacht Report) often being cited to the collection the reports themselves. Does not meet WP:CATDEF, being an obscure and debatable award.
Previous discussion in 2014 closed as no consensus. Since then, several discussions on the relevance of the Wehrmachtbericht Report have taken place, for example, London Gazette vs Wehrmachtbericht, with the consensus being that the reports were unreliable propaganda. The transcripts have subsequently been removed from the articles.
The category itself is likewise not useful as none of the subjects are notable for having been mentioned in the report. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. Kierzek ( talk) 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The category is useful in identifying how and why the the Wehrmachtbericht was used. it is helpful to researchers in identifying the type of mentions. The Federal Archives of Germany, represented by Erich Murawski, have published a list of all 1,500+ people referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht. We have Categories that reference Dictionary of National Biography. We have categories that relate to sources, such as Category:Princeton University Press books .... I don't see the point in deleting it. Furthermore, deletion does not maintain a neutral point of view. Finally, (for now), the Wehrmachtbericht was an important information sources during WWII for the German population, at least for the military portion. We may not like what it said, we may not agree with what it said (today), but historically, it was said. We also cite other sources (1911 Britannica, for example) as categories auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Would a list article address your concerns. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:36, 24 February 2017 (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:Uncensored Japanese pornography

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. – Fayenatic London 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category appears to be a product of original research as the article one would expect to accompany the category (Uncensored Japanese pornography) does not exist. The topic in not covered in the article Pornography in Japan either. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, expansion of the sections Pornography in Japan#Censorship laws and Censorship_in_Japan#Pornography would be useful. It does not, however, change my view on the category itself; it's still based on OR and is non-defining. For the category to be sustainable we need reliable secondary sources that consistently describe the subjects in this way. This material within the articles is often cited to the film titles themselves, which I believe to be a classic definition of OR. Please see WP:CATDEF:
  • A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having...
K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:56, 21 February 2017 (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/2017_February_20&oldid=1074283526"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE