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 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:Marvel Cinematic Universe crossover films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unclear categorisation rationale. What makes these crossover films? All the Avengers films crossovers? If so why are they in here separately and under Avengers (film series)?
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
20:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete It is a cinematic universe. It has a broad range of characters all existing together. That was the purpose from the beginning. Even in the case of the Spiderman films which in their creation have some unique funding stream issues, the characters are basically those of the other films, and so there is no reason to treat them as special or outliers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:13, 22 January 2021 (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:City regions of England
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:A recent AfD established that the article
City region (United Kingdom) should be redirected to
Combined authority on the basis that the term was ambiguous but that this was the most plausible thing a reader would be thinking of; I added a hatnote covering the other use case, a
Local enterprise partnership. This category has the same problem as the article: it contains a jumble of things (an economic board, a local enterprise partnership and a combined authority) that share the words "city region" in their name but little else in common, so this fails
WP:CATDEF: the title "city region" is not a defining characteristic of any of the above.
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)20:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose The term
city region is a term of human geography, which has been the subject of academic study, and pre-dated the use of the term "combined authority". The term
combined authority is a UK term, introduced in 2009, for a group of local government authorities to which central government has agreed to delegate certain functions. Combined authorities are political creations and a mish-mash - some current and proposed combined authorities are not city regions (e.g. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Dorset). City regions are a geographical concept.
Leeds City Region is well defined: it is not a combined authority, although includes a part (
West Yorkshire) which has a combined authority (
West Yorkshire Combined Authority).
To be clear, I’m not confusing the concepts, and I know "city region" has a meaning in yet another sense. But this category isn’t aiming to cover city regions in the sense you describe: it appears to be a attempt to form the topic category for the former article at
City region (United Kingdom), which really was trying to define "city region" as "combined authority with an elected mayor" but also include all the other things like LEPs—something not supported by sources, which was why the article was deleted. Of course, one option would be to repurpose this category for the human geography concept, but then it would presumably need to include things like
London metropolitan area, rather than being limited to things where someone happens to have set up some sort of body calling itself a "city region".
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I've just realised you created the category. My apologies: I’ve struck my conjecture about the category creator, since obviously you knew what you were intending to do with it! I maintain, though, that either the category should follow the human geography concept and include things that are city regions but don't have "city region" in the name, or the category is not defining. Sorry again.
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)00:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Support last suggestion -- A
Combined authority is the result of the government's devolution deals. "City region" may be the name adopted for it formally in some cases; informally in others. Some are based on the scope of LEPs (Local Enterprise Partnerships), but not necessarily. Greater Brighton should be purged, as it is not a Combined Authority. I am not clear if the body described is a LEP or merely a less formal partnership between various bodies. Many local authorities have partnerships with other local bodies, but these seem to be fairly informal, providing a mechanism for district councils to talk to local colleges, Chambers of Commerce, etc.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:26, 24 January 2021 (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:TAM Airlines Flight 3054
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 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:American people of Korean-Chinese descent
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. There was consensus that the nominated category should not exist but no consensus on whether to merge or delete outright. So defaulting to merge to retain some of the categorization information.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. There is only one entry, and he is an immigrant, so categorization in
Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States is worth doing for now. There are 2.3 million Koreans in China, they are one of the 56 recognized ethnic groups, and many can trace their ancestry there back over 100 years, and there are basically all Chinese communities in north-east China. As rice cultivation was exploding there in the 1920s, 80% of the workers on rice patties in the region were ethnically Korean.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:16, 25 January 2021 (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:American women of Korean descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge, trivial intersection between gender and ancestors. We do not have similar categories for other types of ancestry.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge These should be container categories, but there is really nothing worth containing. Current rules and past discussions have established that we should not have biographical articles directly in such categories, and there are not enough non-biographical articles to make retaining the categories worth while.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:13, 25 January 2021 (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:Politicians of the Holy Roman Empire
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 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:Seppuku
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Education and Pedagogy
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 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 Hanoverian Waterloo 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 German Kingdom of Hanover issued the
Hanoverian Waterloo Medal to all Hanoverian military personnel who participated in the Battle of Waterloo, although the category only has 1 article so far. We typically don't categorize by
campaign medals because career officers serve in a variety of locations and conflicts and, accordingly,
that one article mentions the award only in passing with other honours. I don't know if I can say I "listified" the recipients of the award since there is only 1 but that article is now linked
right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep@
User:RevelationDirect I think you are looking at this the wrong way around. A list of medal holders is not notable. What is notable for the subjects of biographies on Wikipedia is if they received this medal. It is similar to to creating a list of old boys of Eaton Collage (in itself not particularly notable), but being in the British cabinate and having been to Eaton is. At the time that the Waterloo medals were struck, such campaign medals were a relativly new idea. The campaign was of limited scope and in both cases they are notable as the first campaign medals that either country issued. They were only issued to officers and men who fought at one or more of the battles Ligny (16 June 1815), Quatre Bras (16 June), or Waterloo (18 June), so they were not campaign medals in the more modern sense of the word (eg those members of the Allied reserve army posted to
Halle or to garrison duties in Brussels on June 18 were not entitled to it even if they were part of the army that went to Paris). There was a lot of resentment in the British Army that there was no such medal for the Peninsular War, but one for Waterloo (where many of the men were new to the colours). However for the rest of time, time and again those who continued to serve in the British Army tended be identified (or not) with whether they had fought in the Waterloo campaign (many of the officers in the Hanoverian Army were British). @
User:Marcocapelle participation in the Waterloo campaign was a defining characteristic of the lives of all notable people who fought there, any obituary or biography will mention it in the lead to the article. This is in part because after this campaign, there was no major West European war for over a generation (in the case of the British for 100 years), and AFAIK no other Britiah campaign medal was struck for the Napolonic Wars. This is informative category and a useful navigation tool. --
PBS (
talk)
19:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Participation in a specific campaign is hardly ever defining - hence nominator's reference to
WP:PERFCAT. The defining characteristic of an individual person is being a soldier or military officer. In any case the award is certainly not defining.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Boris is a politician, he is also an old Etonian. That he is an old Etonian is not in itself notable, but it becomes so when that school is over represented in the Cabinet. That an officer fought in the Waterloo campaign is notable over and above his other military service, because it will always be in the forefront of any biography about the soldier.
PBS (
talk)
19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The difference is that the Victoria Cross is a key element in the biographies of people who received it. That is not the case with the category that we are currently discussing. You seem to confuse the importance of an event for the course of history with the importance of a medal for an individual person.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I have no idea why he got both. "two hats"?, but there is a danger of systemic bias in deleting one but not the other. --
PBS (
talk)
20:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment for those who will participate in this discussion and may not know much about the
Battle of Waterloo and its importance. It is now over 200 years since the end of the Napoleon Wars. There were only two battles which had major commemorations on their 200th anniversary the naval
Battle of Trafalgar (1805) and the
Battle of Waterloo (1815), this along with contemporary recognition is why this category is exceptional. --
PBS (
talk)
19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The Original Topic We've covered a lot of ground in this discussion: bicentennial celebrations, Eton College, the Battle of Trafalgar, systemic bias, British campaign medals, troop morale, Boris Johnston and the Victoria Cross. In the end though, this nomination is about whether a single German award category is defining to the single biography article within it. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete —
WP:NONDEFINING,
WP:PERFCAT, and
WP:OCAWARD. For goodness sake, "... with the reserve near Hal on 18 June, and did not engage in the battle." That was roughly two days away; one day under forced march, but then worthless for battle. Seems like given for being in the general vicinity, and heard about a few days later. Wouldn't want the oldboy feeling left out. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. We should only have categories for the recipients of awards of any kind when they are clearly defining for the subject of the article - as the Victoria Cross generally is. The award is what makes them notable.
Rathfelder (
talk)
00:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete -- clear case of OCAWARD. The one person is already listed in the main article (which is well categorised), so that there is nothing to listify.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete the one biographical article in this category is in 18 total categories, this is excessivie, although actually super low compared to many people who end up in these award categories. Some articles I have seen have had over 50 categories. The award is not on the level to be super defining.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:50, 25 January 2021 (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 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:Marvel Cinematic Universe crossover films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unclear categorisation rationale. What makes these crossover films? All the Avengers films crossovers? If so why are they in here separately and under Avengers (film series)?
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
20:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete It is a cinematic universe. It has a broad range of characters all existing together. That was the purpose from the beginning. Even in the case of the Spiderman films which in their creation have some unique funding stream issues, the characters are basically those of the other films, and so there is no reason to treat them as special or outliers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:13, 22 January 2021 (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:City regions of England
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:A recent AfD established that the article
City region (United Kingdom) should be redirected to
Combined authority on the basis that the term was ambiguous but that this was the most plausible thing a reader would be thinking of; I added a hatnote covering the other use case, a
Local enterprise partnership. This category has the same problem as the article: it contains a jumble of things (an economic board, a local enterprise partnership and a combined authority) that share the words "city region" in their name but little else in common, so this fails
WP:CATDEF: the title "city region" is not a defining characteristic of any of the above.
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)20:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose The term
city region is a term of human geography, which has been the subject of academic study, and pre-dated the use of the term "combined authority". The term
combined authority is a UK term, introduced in 2009, for a group of local government authorities to which central government has agreed to delegate certain functions. Combined authorities are political creations and a mish-mash - some current and proposed combined authorities are not city regions (e.g. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Dorset). City regions are a geographical concept.
Leeds City Region is well defined: it is not a combined authority, although includes a part (
West Yorkshire) which has a combined authority (
West Yorkshire Combined Authority).
To be clear, I’m not confusing the concepts, and I know "city region" has a meaning in yet another sense. But this category isn’t aiming to cover city regions in the sense you describe: it appears to be a attempt to form the topic category for the former article at
City region (United Kingdom), which really was trying to define "city region" as "combined authority with an elected mayor" but also include all the other things like LEPs—something not supported by sources, which was why the article was deleted. Of course, one option would be to repurpose this category for the human geography concept, but then it would presumably need to include things like
London metropolitan area, rather than being limited to things where someone happens to have set up some sort of body calling itself a "city region".
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I've just realised you created the category. My apologies: I’ve struck my conjecture about the category creator, since obviously you knew what you were intending to do with it! I maintain, though, that either the category should follow the human geography concept and include things that are city regions but don't have "city region" in the name, or the category is not defining. Sorry again.
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)00:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Support last suggestion -- A
Combined authority is the result of the government's devolution deals. "City region" may be the name adopted for it formally in some cases; informally in others. Some are based on the scope of LEPs (Local Enterprise Partnerships), but not necessarily. Greater Brighton should be purged, as it is not a Combined Authority. I am not clear if the body described is a LEP or merely a less formal partnership between various bodies. Many local authorities have partnerships with other local bodies, but these seem to be fairly informal, providing a mechanism for district councils to talk to local colleges, Chambers of Commerce, etc.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:26, 24 January 2021 (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:TAM Airlines Flight 3054
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 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:American people of Korean-Chinese descent
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. There was consensus that the nominated category should not exist but no consensus on whether to merge or delete outright. So defaulting to merge to retain some of the categorization information.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. There is only one entry, and he is an immigrant, so categorization in
Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States is worth doing for now. There are 2.3 million Koreans in China, they are one of the 56 recognized ethnic groups, and many can trace their ancestry there back over 100 years, and there are basically all Chinese communities in north-east China. As rice cultivation was exploding there in the 1920s, 80% of the workers on rice patties in the region were ethnically Korean.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:16, 25 January 2021 (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:American women of Korean descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge, trivial intersection between gender and ancestors. We do not have similar categories for other types of ancestry.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge These should be container categories, but there is really nothing worth containing. Current rules and past discussions have established that we should not have biographical articles directly in such categories, and there are not enough non-biographical articles to make retaining the categories worth while.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:13, 25 January 2021 (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:Politicians of the Holy Roman Empire
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 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:Seppuku
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Education and Pedagogy
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 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 Hanoverian Waterloo 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 German Kingdom of Hanover issued the
Hanoverian Waterloo Medal to all Hanoverian military personnel who participated in the Battle of Waterloo, although the category only has 1 article so far. We typically don't categorize by
campaign medals because career officers serve in a variety of locations and conflicts and, accordingly,
that one article mentions the award only in passing with other honours. I don't know if I can say I "listified" the recipients of the award since there is only 1 but that article is now linked
right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep@
User:RevelationDirect I think you are looking at this the wrong way around. A list of medal holders is not notable. What is notable for the subjects of biographies on Wikipedia is if they received this medal. It is similar to to creating a list of old boys of Eaton Collage (in itself not particularly notable), but being in the British cabinate and having been to Eaton is. At the time that the Waterloo medals were struck, such campaign medals were a relativly new idea. The campaign was of limited scope and in both cases they are notable as the first campaign medals that either country issued. They were only issued to officers and men who fought at one or more of the battles Ligny (16 June 1815), Quatre Bras (16 June), or Waterloo (18 June), so they were not campaign medals in the more modern sense of the word (eg those members of the Allied reserve army posted to
Halle or to garrison duties in Brussels on June 18 were not entitled to it even if they were part of the army that went to Paris). There was a lot of resentment in the British Army that there was no such medal for the Peninsular War, but one for Waterloo (where many of the men were new to the colours). However for the rest of time, time and again those who continued to serve in the British Army tended be identified (or not) with whether they had fought in the Waterloo campaign (many of the officers in the Hanoverian Army were British). @
User:Marcocapelle participation in the Waterloo campaign was a defining characteristic of the lives of all notable people who fought there, any obituary or biography will mention it in the lead to the article. This is in part because after this campaign, there was no major West European war for over a generation (in the case of the British for 100 years), and AFAIK no other Britiah campaign medal was struck for the Napolonic Wars. This is informative category and a useful navigation tool. --
PBS (
talk)
19:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Participation in a specific campaign is hardly ever defining - hence nominator's reference to
WP:PERFCAT. The defining characteristic of an individual person is being a soldier or military officer. In any case the award is certainly not defining.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Boris is a politician, he is also an old Etonian. That he is an old Etonian is not in itself notable, but it becomes so when that school is over represented in the Cabinet. That an officer fought in the Waterloo campaign is notable over and above his other military service, because it will always be in the forefront of any biography about the soldier.
PBS (
talk)
19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The difference is that the Victoria Cross is a key element in the biographies of people who received it. That is not the case with the category that we are currently discussing. You seem to confuse the importance of an event for the course of history with the importance of a medal for an individual person.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I have no idea why he got both. "two hats"?, but there is a danger of systemic bias in deleting one but not the other. --
PBS (
talk)
20:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment for those who will participate in this discussion and may not know much about the
Battle of Waterloo and its importance. It is now over 200 years since the end of the Napoleon Wars. There were only two battles which had major commemorations on their 200th anniversary the naval
Battle of Trafalgar (1805) and the
Battle of Waterloo (1815), this along with contemporary recognition is why this category is exceptional. --
PBS (
talk)
19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The Original Topic We've covered a lot of ground in this discussion: bicentennial celebrations, Eton College, the Battle of Trafalgar, systemic bias, British campaign medals, troop morale, Boris Johnston and the Victoria Cross. In the end though, this nomination is about whether a single German award category is defining to the single biography article within it. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete —
WP:NONDEFINING,
WP:PERFCAT, and
WP:OCAWARD. For goodness sake, "... with the reserve near Hal on 18 June, and did not engage in the battle." That was roughly two days away; one day under forced march, but then worthless for battle. Seems like given for being in the general vicinity, and heard about a few days later. Wouldn't want the oldboy feeling left out. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. We should only have categories for the recipients of awards of any kind when they are clearly defining for the subject of the article - as the Victoria Cross generally is. The award is what makes them notable.
Rathfelder (
talk)
00:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete -- clear case of OCAWARD. The one person is already listed in the main article (which is well categorised), so that there is nothing to listify.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete the one biographical article in this category is in 18 total categories, this is excessivie, although actually super low compared to many people who end up in these award categories. Some articles I have seen have had over 50 categories. The award is not on the level to be super defining.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:50, 25 January 2021 (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.