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: As with Category:War thriller films seen below, this category was created by Darunia02 (talk·contribs), who's received several warnings for unsourced genre changes at multiple articles. War action films is not a distinct genre, and there is no article discussing it. War films can have sequences of combat, but few have actual chase scenes or extended fist fights, etc. Most do not meet the definition seen at action film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I would expect a war film to feature action as a given. Oculi (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this isn't an established genre. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator. • DP • {huh?} 19:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to justify as a distinct genre.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2016 (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: Thriller and suspense are the same thing, it's pointless to have a cat for suspense.. Darunia02 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are mostly subjective, and better handled by lists where they can be sourced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "suspense film" is attested in reliable sources ([1], [2]), but it's arguably overcategorization to obsess over labeling subgenres like this. I don't have strong feelings about this and feel arguments could be made for either keeping or merging. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not clearly distinct from thriller films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2016 (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: Category was created by Darunia02 (talk·contribs), who's received several warnings for inappropriate and unsubstantiated genre changes to film articles from multiple editors at this point. This doesn't appear to be a recognized film genre, if the lack of an article discussing it is any indicator. I think this may be an overly-specific or possibly redundant category, but would like input from other editors. DonIago (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real genre per se, but science-fiction war is not a substantiated genre either, all the films I have added war thriller are recognized widely as both war and thriller, so I thought it would be useful to make a cat genre for war thriller. Darunia02 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the films you added to this category had no mention of the word "thriller" within the article, so I'm going to have to beg to differ on that one. DonIago (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are mostly subjective, and better handled by lists where they can be sourced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Intersection of two random genres. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Why is there science-fiction war cat? those are two random genres, there can't be sci-fi in a war setting, Darunia02 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF - Just because one potentially inappropriate category exists is not justification for keeping another. It may well be the case that that one should be deleted as well. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. When a category creator's Talk page has multiple warnings for genre changes at multiple articles, it's all the more reason to take a hard look at what he's doing. The new Category:War action films, also created by Darunia02, should be deleted as well. Many of its entries are not even action films. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should delete war adventure, science fiction war, war romance and war drama too. And why not war epic films too, since there are crime epic films too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darunia02 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to justify as a unique intersection. It should be remembered that we do not keep flawed genre categories because other flawed genre categories exist. We look at each genre on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2016 (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:Roman Catholic churches in Cambridge[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.
Keep. Part of a categorisation tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2016 (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.
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: Articles should be categorized by their topic, not by characteristics of their title. E.g. articles such as Behavioral targeting are articles about internet marketing, not articles specifically about terminology. DexDor(talk) 06:56, 26 August 2016 (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: This is an unnecessary category (it contains just 2 images and the merge target has just 22 images excluding subcats). If not merged should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia images of habitat maps (it's not a category for articles about habitat maps). DexDor(talk) 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. What is the purpose of the "images of maps" category, and how is e.g. File:Europe 1430.PNG an "image of a map" rathern than, you know, a "map"? "Habitat maps" can be deleted because both its members can be moved to commons, where "Habitat maps" are called "Distributional maps of organisms". It is a common effect that even the most sensible image categories on wikipedia.org are under populated because we attempt to host images at commons whenever possible (which is almost always), but this doesn't mean a "habitat map" is somehow an "image of a map" as your suggestion seems to imply. --dab(𒁳) 06:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that images should be at Commons (rather than Wikipedia) where possible, but I'm not sure what you mean by "under populated". DexDor(talk) 20:24, 28 August 2016 (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:delete per WP:SMALLCAT, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge to Category:History as an unnecessary layer (I'm not sure that SMALLCAT really applies here). DexDor(talk) 05:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless category. Most things are consequences of things prior. Indeed many things are a consequence of the Big Bang. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything and everyone that exists is technically a consequence of something or someone whose existence predates it, making this potentially a unmaintainable supercategory for all Wikipedia content. I get that it's actually being used for a much narrower and more specific purpose than "everything that exists", but it's not actually adding anything necessary to that specific purpose's category parentage and its name isn't inherently limiting it to that specific purpose. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2016 (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 Albanian Commemorative 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.
According to the article, the Albanian Commemorative Medal was automatically awarded to "all Serbian military personnel and civilians who retreated through Albania in the winter of 1915/16 during World War I." We don't typically categorize people by campaign medals because it ends up creating category clutter for career soldiers who participate in multiple campaigns. The one problem this category does not have is WP:SMALLCAT: 142,148 of these medals were given out in 1920. The current members of this category are listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a service medal. Not awarded for any merit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2016 (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 Order of the Supreme Sun[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.
When foreign heads of state visited Afghanistan, they received one of these souvenirs from the Afghan government as part of the official welcome. I don't see how George VI (King of the UK), Fuad I (King of Egypt), Ali Reza Pahlavi (Shah of Iran), or Iskander Mirza (President of Pakistan) are defined by an Afghan award. Of the 12 people in this category, 11 are foreign officials. (The only Afghan in the category, Humaira Begum, was the Queen Consort of Afghanistan and certainly didn't win the award from individual merit.) To see what these awards for visiting dignitaries look like at the article level, take a look at this mess. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again, although sometimes awarded to foreign dignitaries, it was obviously also awarded to Afghans for merit and is therefore a viable category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes? There is no Afghan in the category who received the award for merit. None, zero, zip! RevelationDirect (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, but there clearly could be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is non-defining for some of its recipients. 17:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Strong delete This is one of many over the top award categories that serves to create lots and lots of category clutter and totally violates our standards on such. Not only are none of the people who recieved the award Afghans, the list with the award article makes mention to absolutely no Afghans. Even if an Afghan received the award "for merit" it is not clear that categorizing him for doing so would be justified. We would have to demonstrate the award was defining to him. Arguments that are based on failure to actually analize the contents of a category and make false claims about its contents should be discounted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, so all the many categories for recipients of British and American awards for merit should be deleted too, should they? Sorry, but that ludicrous suggestion has already been proposed by some misguided editors and roundly dismissed with the contempt it deserves. Any genuine honour awarded for merit is clearly defining. Who are we to claim otherwise? Why are we accepting some honours as defining and others as not? Funnily enough, the ones we dismiss as not defining are invariably those awarded by non-English-speaking countries. Yet Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal, an American award for being unfortunate enough to get shot and reflecting no merit whatsoever, has survived all attempts to get it deleted (one of them by myself). Funny that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each award is judges on its own basis. No one in this category was an Afghan receiving the award on merit. There are lots of other flawed categories, however those flawed categories should not force us to keep other flawed ones. I also think we should delete the Purple Heart Category, but lack the energy to nominate it at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2016 (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.
