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: Delete. The above medals are largely
trivial due to how frequently they are awarded and the number that are awarded. In addition categories are supposed to be categorize articles by their
defining characteristics, and these categories do not meet that as no one is inherintly notable for receiving one or multiple of these awards. As one example of how frequently these are awarded, since 2001 alone over 500,000
Army Commendation Medals have been awarded.
[1] Recipients of awards
should be grouped into a list rather than a category generally speaking anyhow, especially when they are non-defining characteristics. — -
dainomite20:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Vanquisher.UA: I'm not saying the categories are too large, I'm just saying that the awards themselves are non-defining characteristics which is the opposite of what categories are for, to quote
Wikipedia:Categorization"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic". — -
dainomite20:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Generals and admirals (and us peasants) wear/wore them because regulations require all medals, ribbons, etc. that have been awarded be worn. Not a good argument to keep, it would call for the creation of [[Category:Air Force Longevity Ribbon]], which all USAF generals have (with clusters). --
Lineagegeek (
talk)
22:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Info About Notability -
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Direct citation: Corporal Hayes was awarded a Letter of Commendation with Commendation Ribbon by the Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, Lieutenant General Roy S. Geiger, for his "meritorious and efficient performance of duty while serving with a Marine infantry battalion during operations against the enemy on Vella Lavella and Bougainville, British Solomon Islands, from 15 August to 15 December 1943, and on
Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, from 19 February to 27 March 1945. See full article
here. Keep.
Vanquisher.UA(talk)15:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - although I partially agree with the nominator that these don't particuarly need to be tracked as a category that isn't to me a valid reason to delete them either. Considering all the categories I feel are completely useless regarding Userboxes, these really aren't that big of a deal. There is also some utility to having this especially if the motion goes through at the Milhist page to remove all the Medal displays (referred to there as Medal farms) from the articles. We would then have no listing of them on the articles and with that would no longer be presenting an accurate picture of the article to the readers.
Kumioko (
talk)
13:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
But deleting the category doesn't impact medal farms. The images would still be on Commons to add wherever appropriate (or, some would say, inappropriate). I don't think there's much of a chance that there will ever be a consensus at
WP:MILHIST to do anything about medal farms, so they're probably here to stay. --
Lineagegeek (
talk)
22:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Regarding "We would then have no listing of them on the articles" - if there's no mention (ideally with a reference) of the medal in the text of an article then the article shouldn't be in the category anyway.
DexDor (
talk)
19:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
And a good way to ensure that happens is to systematically strip off all mention of it from the article. First from the medal display, then the infobox, then the category. Then someone will say its not in the infobox, there is no category, there is no medal display, why are we mentioning this if its not notable enough to bein one of those? I have seen that happen multiple times over the years. A steady erosion of the content of articles.
Kumioko (
talk)
19:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
@
DexDor: Yeah... after creating the section I regretted adding the word "trivial" to the name but I didn't want to go and change it after the fact. =/ — -
dainomite23:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete These awards are not defining of the people who received them. They lead to category clutter. We should categorize people by who they are, not what awards they are given.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I checked the first 3 people in one of the awards categories involved here and found that all were in six award categories. That is way too many, and why we should avoid virtually all awards categories. People who get awards often are given lots of them.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure this is the right place for the discussion but I generally scoff at the whole overcat mentality. If its a cat and it applies to the situation then use it. Some people are going to have a few and some a lot, there's no way to get around that. We shouldn't be chopping them out just because the person has a lot of them. Their there for a reason and we should use them as such without worrying over how many there are.
Kumioko (
talk)
03:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Kumioko, your dismissive remark about "the whole overcat mentality" is just plain ridiculous. I would suggest, to the contrary, that you are a perfect illustration of the "no category is too trivial" mentality. If you think that category clutter is a non-issue you are completely ignoring the very real negative impact all of those excessive categories have on the usability of the category system. Very few readers are going to expend the time and effort required to comb thru the endless array of trivial categories that can be found at the bottom of all too many pages. That is the reason I said that trivial award categories are the runaway
Kudzu plants of Wikipedia. The fact that you dismiss this concern out of hand tells me that your views on the subject should be dismissed out of hand.
Cgingold (
talk)
08:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually if you want the truth I think our system of categorization on this site sucks and needs a complete revamp. I think it worked ok in the early days when the pedia was small but now its so large that many of these categories contains thousands of articles; its hard to tell the difference between what categories go to what namespace; which ones are redirects or not; which ones are used or needed; etc. But if the category is appropriate for the article, then add it. That's all I am trying to say. As far as usability of the article goes though, the categories are useless because frankly 99.9% of the readers of the articles don't give a shit about the categories. The catergories are for us more than the readers.
Kumioko (
talk)
14:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that one of the primary reasons Categories aren't used more than they are by readers is because, all too often, there is a massive, visually confusing welter of categories on display at the bottom of the page -- more often than not arranged alphabetically, which is utterly pointless, or in some other equally pointless random order -- rather than arranged thematically, which I try to do whenever possible. The overindulgence in award categories is a major contributor to the problem because listing one such category after another after another just makes the eyes glaze over.
Cgingold (
talk)
11:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I'll make you a deal, when we can delete the thousands of unused and unencyclopedic userboxes and associated categories I'll change my mind. But as long as we have several thousand of those, that don't belong here in the project at all in the first place, I am not going to change my mind that these categories aren't of some use.
Kumioko (
talk)
13:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete: No miltiary award is really trivial, but the above awards were so massively issued (we're talking hundreds of thousands of awards in the past fifty years) that a category would be quickly overwhealmed. Support a deletion. -
OberRanks (
talk)
21:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify then delete. They are not trivial, but I suspect that too many awards will have eben made for them to be defining or to make a useful category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete / Don't Listify The same reasons that make this such a poor choice for a category make it an equally poor choice for a list. There are simply too many people receiving these awards to make it a defining characteristic. Too often these overbroad categories seem to be created as it allows for an opportunity to manufacture boatloads of edits to add these categories to each of the thousands of articles and run up edit accounts while adding little or nothing to the encyclopedia.
Alansohn (
talk)
17:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Some comments above. So common that there are probably more people who have the award with Wiki articles where it isn't mentioned (and there's probably no
WP:RS to verify it) and aren't categorized than those in the category. --
Lineagegeek (
talk)
22:21, 12 September 2013 (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:Wikipedians in Mauritius
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: This category is empty so I am recommending we merge Wikipedians in Mauritius with Category:Mauritian Wikipedians. There aren't any users in this one anyway.
Kumioko (
talk)
19:02, 8 September 2013 (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:User cdo-N
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: Unused Category. If someone selects this with the template we can always recreate it but we shouldn't keep it just in case someone someday claims it.
Kumioko (
talk)
17:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused Category. If someone selects this with the template we can always recreate it but we shouldn't keep it just in case someone someday claims it.
Kumioko (
talk)
17:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete both and also
Category:User cdo, which is empty apart from the two empty subcategories. They are suppoed to relate to WPans who speak
Ming Dong Chinese, but we do not seem even to have an article on that language nor is it at
Ming Dong. I do not know, but I suspect the whole thing is
WP:HOAX. If it had been renamed, I would expect a redirect to have eben left.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:10, 10 September 2013 (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:P4 laboratory
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:16th/17th century in Central America
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.
Upmerge per nom We typically use the dash in categories such as "16th-century people", when it is used as an adjective. This is not such a case.
Dimadick (
talk)
05:12, 9 September 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use DOS
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.
Comment I would think it is likely that there remain DOS users amongst us. Whether they would categorize themselves as one is an open question. Several businesses have maintained software that runs atop DOS, and not just small businesses, but some very large ones as well. Some employees of these companies will encounter, and use DOS. That ignores the fact that FreeDOS is still a going concern, and has partisans who favour it. This could also be used for people who prefer the command line WinDOS in MSWindows, and frequently use it. So, it remains that this category is empty, is it due to lack of knowledge of such a categorization? --
70.24.244.158 (
talk)
07:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - Pointless. Doubly so if you look down and see all the ...who use windows xx... have been deleted. I use Linux. So what? I also use a shovel, irony, and American express. --
Robert EA Harvey (
talk)
18:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment As eloquently put above, why is there any more need for this than there would be for
Category:Wikipedians who have a dishwasher? Nobody, I assume, is going to be editing wikipedia from DOS, and if, by some strange quirk they are, so what? It's no use, therefore for software development, statistics (since it relies on self selection), or testing, or any other conceivable purpose. As for merging the other categories to some contrived "Microsoft prior to XP" invention, that's even less use, and looks like nothing other than an attempt to save "some category - any category". Really - what is the point of any of this fluff except in relation, maybe, to some of T13's Userboxes, which can stand or fall equally well without contrived categories. Honestly - I fail to see the point of any of it. Lots of bytes of attention gaining discussion, though - I'll grant you that, at least. Begoontalk20:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Keepits extremely doubtful anyone is using straight DOS - I use MS-DOS 6.22 on my other PC. Why? Because I have some legacy software that simply won't work on anything more recent. Plus, it does what I tell it to do, and doesn't try to second-guess me. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I use DOS too - on virtual machines, and an old testbed PC - I loved DOS 6.22 with all my heart. Why on earth does that make it a useful category for wikipedia users any more than the
Category:Wikipedia users who used to have an MG Midget one to which I would also belong? I hesitate to say it, but I also have an OS/2 machine. I have an old unused Psion organiser too. This is all very silly. Begoontalk
It would be an interest/expertise categorization of Wikipedians, just like any other categorization of Wikipedians. (Otherwise it should not exist,
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK). It would be the same as those who use Linux, or {{User Arduino}}; one wouldn't use an Arduino to edit Wikipedia either, though it is theoretically possible to do so. "User DOS" would identify a population of Wikipedians for which DOS expertise might be available from, and for which there may be a response to pondered DOS-based questions. --
70.24.244.158 (
talk)
05:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - This category seeks to group users on the basis of a characteristic that has no relevance to encyclopedic collaboration. I have used Windows, Android, iOS, and OS X, but that doesn't mean I have any idea about those topics or any interest in editing articles related to them. -- Black Falcon(
talk)03:40, 16 September 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 98
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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 3.x
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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows ME
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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 95
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: I think it would be ok to delete this Category now. Its doubtful many are still using Windows 95 and this category is empty as a testemant to that assessment.
Kumioko (
talk)
02:17, 8 September 2013 (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:Films that use CGI
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.
Keep, but rename to
Category:Films using computer-generated imagery. CGI is no longer exceptional in film-making, but it is a technology which has emerged only in the last 15 years or so ... so it remains a small item in the history of motion pictures, and most films still do not use CGI. Many of the early CGI films are clearly defined by it, such as Titanic and The Perfect Storm ... while the whole of the Lord of The Rings series is also clearly defined by it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete – Some films use CGI extensively, but some use only miniscule amounts. It doesn't seems encyclopedic to draw an arbitrary line between the two, and I don't think there's any value in lumping almost entirely computer-generated films in with films that use one or two digital effects. If it's to be kept in some form, this category will need a better definition, and I can't think what that might be. —
Flax517:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete So many films use CGI at least partly that this is not really defining of films. Most scifi/comic book/fantasy films made in the last 15+ years will use at least some CGI.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete no longer defining. It may have been in 1978, as would have such things as people owning computers, people owning electric cars, or people moving from East Germany to West, but alas, it's commonplace now.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
01:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Movies now use CGI one way or another so that category would have to apply to almost every movie. I don't see how it can be useful either. --
Lyverbe (
talk)
00:04, 16 September 2013 (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.