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.
Rename per nom. These seem to be synonyms. Dimadick (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- I do not think Provence spent any significant period as an independent state. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this is a minor cadet branch of the Pippinid dynasty with only the founder of the branch categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Seems reasonable enough to merge to the parent dynasty. Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge as this gives a strong impression that the two categories have an identical scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. One seems to be about the dynasty, the other about its individuals. This seems unneccessary. Dimadick (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I do not think we need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge as the two dynasties were strongly intertwined, article Arnulfings redirects to Pippinids. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. They are the two ancestral lines of the same family. One through the male line and the other through the female line. Dimadick (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Hanoverian Waterloo Medal[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Campaign medals are not significantly defining awards, they are broadly distributed to armies for participation in campaigns. EricSerge (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged that category and added it to the list above. DexDor(talk) 18:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that the Nominator's rationale is mistaken in this case. 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). Also because it is the first one no others were issued during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars as this was the last campaign of the wars. The British Army would not be involved in another major war until the Crimea so the issuing of these particular campaign medals were notable at the time and since. At a practical level only biographies of notable people who fought for the British at Quatre Bras or Waterloo were granted the medal and it is a useful way to navigate between notable biographies of those who fought in the campaign. -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The Naval General Service Medal and Military General Service Medal were the next to be created by the British Empire to recognize campaign service. These retrospective awards recognized campaign service going as far back as 1793. More than 3 years ago, the recipient category for the Military General Service Medal was deleted (WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 20#Service medals). Being among the first campaign medals makes the medal notable for that characteristic but not the recipients of the medal. EricSerge (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have categories such as Category:British Army personnel of the Napoleonic Wars and don't need medal-based categories as well. That a piece of information is important enough to be mentioned in an article does not necessarily mean it's a good way to categorize pages. Note: The Hanovarian category currently contains only one valid article (about a recipient). DexDor(talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at a sample of the articles in the BApotNW category and found no problem confirming that the article subjects belonged in that category - in some cases just looking at the ToC is enough (e.g. James_Henry_Craig#Service_during_the_Napoleonic_Wars). If an article says the subject served at the Battle of Waterloo then it's reasonable to put it in a Napoleonic Wars category (do you doubt that BoW was part of NW?). We often assume some basic facts in wp categorization - e.g. an article may describe someone as English, but the article is placed in a British category. DexDor(talk) 21:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both of these are "participation" medals given to every soldier per the articles. That doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but what does "That doesn't seem defining" mean? -- PBS (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at articles in these categories it appears that (as I would expect) the articles introduce the person with something like "General Foobar was a British Officer during the Napoleonic Wars" and include a list of medals/honours received in the text of the article. See Denis Pack for a good example. Few, if any, of these articles begin with something like "General Foobar was a winner of ... medal." (which would be much less meaningful to most readers). Note also that "<Country> personnel of <War>" categories provide better navigation to categories for other countries/wars than do "Recipients of <medal>" categories. DexDor(talk) 21:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you click through the articles, some are notable because they were soldiers during the Napoleonic Wars and some weren't. Of the ones I saw that were notable as soldiers, they article mentioned the award only in passing, if it all, usually with other medals. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would not seek to argue to keep campaign medal from later wars, but I think that they are not routinely awarded at that period, so that this will not generate significant category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not keep campaign medals for any wars. The people are already categorized based on the war, the campaign medal just leads to more category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I too would usually not keep categories for campaign medals, but I think the Waterloo Medals are a different case, as they (a) hold an important place in the history of British medals, and (b) categorise those who fought in one of the most significant battles in world history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:do not rename, but there seems to be consensus that the definition may need to be tightened up, or perhaps an alternate rename might be appropriate. So this is without prejudice to other proposals or changes being made. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "victims of cyberbulling" is extremely widespread and subjective. Every week we hear about people closing their twitter account because of abuse. 42% of kids said they've been bullied online.[1] Not a defining characteristic. Rename to Category:Cyberbullicide, which is defining and unambiguous. JudgeJason (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:NEOLOGISM and Cyberbullicide is a redlink. Suggest splitting to Category:Suicide attributed to cyberbullying instead, as that is descriptive without being WP:JARGONous; the category description does not indicate that this is a suicide-only category, so the proposed name also doesn't match the current scope. Further, we only categorize by this when the instances of cyberbullying are notable and defining characteristics of the people indicated. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename (per IP). Either delete (after checking that all the articles are in other suitable categories) or make the inclusion criteria much tighter (e.g. "This category is for articles about people who are notable for being...") - otherwise this category could end up being used to tag every politician, celebrity etc who's ever been attacked by Twitter trolls etc (see WP:DNWAUC).
Being a victim of cyberbullying is not itself sufficient to make a person notable. If the person became notable as an advocate against cyberbullying then they should be categorized on that basis. If an article is about a person who committed suicide then it's better to categorize by less subjective characteristics (e.g. Category:High school students who committed suicide and Suicides-in-<place> categories) as cyberbullying may have been just one of the factors that led to the suicide (note: the media may concentrate on the cyberbullying aspects of a case rather than those aspects that are harder to investigate/report that may be equally/more relevant). Note: There can also be lists. DexDor(talk) 18:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cyberbullicide seems to be a neologism, and I doubt this topic should be a category by cause of death. Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper WP:MADEUP, as Cyberbullicide isn't even a word, let alone a neologism. And I see that the nominator has been recently warned about disruptive editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue and unfair. It is a WP:NEO. I'd misspelled it on my Google search. Still, opposed to the rename, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Suicide attributed to cyberbullying might be a valid category, but I suspect that these victims will generally be notable for nothing but their suicide. Is that a useful category? I suspect that the subject of bullying is (regrettably) far too common for a category for living victims to be useful, unless possibly the victims have eben parties to notable litigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time we do not have enough information to clearly show these people as a group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at current name, as more intuitive and self-explanatory — to our readers. — Cirt (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:wrong venue this is an article in the wrong space. JudgeJason (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, there are only 2 articles in this category with limited opportunity for growth because the industry is very concentrated. This scope expansion gets us up to 5 articles which is a more viable category to aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background: This is the 3rd nomination so far this year (1, 2) for this beleaguered little category, but I think it just needs a little TLC. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – going back to first principles, we categorise by defining characteristics. Both the companies listed are specialist manufacturers of garage door openers and so the name is precise and spot-on. (In contrast, neither company is a garage door opener.) Oculi (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles on companies should not be categorized as on doors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. There is a problem, however, with not dealing with all the certifications from a particular country at once. These categories are not generally added manually but rather are applied by application of Template:Certification Table Entry. In the template, the country is specified as well as the level of certification, and that adds the article to an appropriate category. The problem is, it's not easy to turn of the category application for gold certifications for all countries but not turn it off for other certifications of all countries. (It may be possible, but I don't know how to do it.) It is easy to turn off all category application for a particular country's certifications. For that reason, these particular categories might just have to remain as "red-linked categories" on the articles until/unless all the certifications for any particular country are deleted. Thus, despite the challenges with nominating whole country trees at once, it might be a better idea to do so if we want the articles to be actually removed from the categories sooner rather than later.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are you just planning to delete the gold certification categories, or does this apply to the platinum and multi-platinum categories as well? Richard3120 (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just these for now. The prior listings were by certifying agency which caused some issues (with the Canadian one voted keep) as people called it biased. Next, I'll probably list the whole category as a whole if there's consensus to that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel like these certifications are in fact subject defining characteristics. They're criteria we look for with WP:NALBUMS and WP:NSONGS when trying to determine notability, and whether or not these certifications are obtained are widely regarded as important in the music industry. Sergecross73msg me 17:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone objects to using sales numbers (which is what these awards really are) to determine notability. If an album, book, video game is a top seller, that certainly can justify the creation of an article. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just figured, if its something that is valued quite a bit both in the industry, and in Wikipedia, then it seems like a legitimate category. It doesn't seem people I'm on the same page as everyone else though, just as well, I'm pretty experienced in the area of albums/song article, but no expert in categories. Thought I'd give a different perspective, that's all. Sergecross73msg me 13:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining us, we need more editors here! RevelationDirect (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire Category:Albums by certification tree. Though collectively they may be defining and indicative of an album's impact, any one of them, or tiny set of a few of them, likely means nothing on its own. I find it hard to believe that an average person from one country would care about all of an album's certifications from any number of other countries, and since each one has independent numeric criteria and certification levels (going as absurdly high as Category:Albums certified duovigenuple platinum by the Productores de Música de España), as a group they can't mean much; it would take further research to try to figure out just what each term means in any given region. All of this content is far more useful and less cluttered if presented as lists, so that can and should remain an option, but overall, I think this entire category structure needs to be obliterated – from there, do the same to Category:Singles by certification. —烏Γ(kaw), 20:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but attempts at listing some countries have resulted in a barrage of keep votes on the basis that it was offensive to "pick" on that countries and listing the whole structure at once would be a monster listing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The size shouldn't matter; because of that behavior, nothing will get done if the whole tree (or at least very large chunks like the current) isn't nominated at once. Alternatively, though, now that there are at least three precedents (four if this one goes the way it should), it should be much simpler to clear out the rest, possibly even speedily. —烏Γ(kaw), 19:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Sales records make for good sources on the commercial success of a product, but they don't seem to make for good categorization criteria. Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- in essence this is in the nature of an award category, even if not strictly one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These amount to category clutter. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
