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.
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:Obsolete templates
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 meant for templates [that] may be obsolete, but they may also have historical importance. It is currently empty (except for its also empty sub-category) and should be deleted for two main reasons:
"Deprecated" is the correct technical term and the one that should be used instead of "Obsolete".
Lean Toward Delete If these are empty and aren't serving to improving Wikipedia, I'm inclined to dump them unless someone comes forward that says "they help becasue of this". (No objection to Geolodus's soft redirect proposal though).
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People who were rejected for the Victoria Cross
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: Per some through-the-looking-glass version of
WP:OCAWARD
The
Victoria Cross is the top medal from the United Kingdom so receiving it is obviously defining. This category asks the opposite question: Is not receiving it also defining? The biography articles in this category offer sad stories of British dying in battle, who were submitted for this award, but it was determined there wasn't enough documented valour so they received a different medal instead. I suspect a great deal of applicants were denied though and it's just not mentioned in their Wikipedia articles. Imagine all the other anti-categories we could create! -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete -- There has to be a selection mechanism for such awards, so that there are inevitably people who are for one reason or another judged to be not quite of the requisite standard. The basis for this category seems to be that a person was recommended for the award but not given it, the reasons sometimes not being wholly apparent. One of the difficulties has to be that the bravery must be witnessed by someone of suitably high standing.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I would suggest reading some of the entries here, in order to understand the significance of the category. And it's a sad comment on contemporary society to compare the VC to lingerie modelling.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The
Victoria Cross is a gallantry award, and the people of the category were military veterans who were at least nominated for it. More defining for their careers than most medals.
Dimadick (
talk)
18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete or turn into an article. If there are significant issues to be discussed, they can be covered in an article (or list article), but hard to see this works as a category.
Bondegezou (
talk)
09:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete and listify. The topic is notable (like people who refused a Nobel Prize), but is not defining enough to be worth a category. A list of rejections with associated circumstances and every worthy detail will be a lot more valuable.
Place Clichy (
talk)
15:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete (possibly listify). I thought there was a guideline against "not" categories, but the closest I could find is
WP:CANDIDATECAT (which doesn't quite fit this). In the interests of consistency of categorization we shouldn't have categories like this. There is also the issue of the whether this characteristic can be reliably sourced (e.g. see the
Robert Williams Michell article). DexDor(talk)19:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Listify and then delete -- While the
Victoria Cross is the preeminent British (and Commonwealth) award for gallantry and only very rarely awarded, those nominated for it but not awarded it represent a sort of AWARD category. The VC itself and
George Cross (for gallantry not in the face of the enemy) are notable enough to warrant having a category (under the exception to OCAWARD), but its non-award should not. The content would make an interesting tabular list with date, name, citation, and reason for non-award.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:19, 25 April 2019 (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:Professional Darts Corporation Hall of Fame inductees
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.