- 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 to delete. There have been comments in this discussion made that were not the most civil I have seen; users are reminded to avoid attacking other editors and to discuss differences of opinion with civility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Battles of the Operations about Dandridge of the American Civil War
- Nominator's rationale: These categories with wordy titles that meet the WP:SMALLCAT deletion criteria are redundant (WP:OVERCAT) with the shorter-named Templates which have the identical contents. They don't appear to have corresponding main articles and it looks like someone went overboard regarding battles that weren't part of campaigns when developing the Category:Battles of... level of subcategories. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. However, we should at least make sure each of the articles are in the theater that they belong to, or at least somewhere in the Category:Battles of the American Civil War tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support' and Recat to the correct theatre. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, perhaps rename as necessary. These categories represent seperate campaigns of the ACW. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opposition is unfounded since none of the above are American Civil War campaigns (which is why they don't have corresponding articles) -- some are as small as just 1 battle, which can't in any way be considered a campaign. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wiktionary, a military campaign is a "series of operations undertaken to achieve a set goal", which can certainly be said of pratically all of the categories in this section, like the Iuka and Corinth Operations and the Federal Penetration up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia itself is, by its own declaration, not a valid reference for Wikipedia (this discussion is at Wikipedia), and of course the definition is clearly false, as it ridiculously defines the entire war with a common objective and a 4 year series of battles as a campaign, as well as numerous "battles" as campaigns outright (e.g., the Battle of Gettysburg itself was a 3-day "series of battles" with an objective!) What you're advocating is that all raids that meet that definition (e.g., Stoneman's 1864 Raid, Early's Raid) be categorized into Category:Campaigns of the Eastern Theater..., etc, right? Quite ridiculous, wouldn't you say? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found The Free Dictionary: "several related operations aimed at achieving a particular goal (usually within geographical and temporal constraints)". Answers.com: "A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large-scale objective during a war: Grant's Vicksburg campaign secured the entire Mississippi for the Union." Thus, for example, Longstreet's Tidewater Campaign was a series of battles instigated by the Confederates with the objective of recapturing Suffolk. Wild Wolf (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More ridiculous info from User:Wild Wolf -- not only the quotes which have the same ridiculous lack of definitiveness, but the 2nd quote identifies the opposite of the falsehood by Wild Wolf: the capture of Suffolk wasn't a large-scale objective, so Longstreets associated military engagements aren't even a campaign by that non-definition. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course the other non-definition is blatantly false since the Vicksburg Campaign didn't open the Mississippi River (it was closed until a separate engagement ended on June 9). The Vicksburg Campaign wasn't even the one with that objective, which was what the Mississippi River Campaign was for accomplishing. More BS from the guy who hasn't provide a single reason why these categories don't meet the WP:OC/WP:SMALLCAT criteria (because of course, they do!) 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that calling Wild Wolf's arguments "BS" violates Wikipedia:Civility guidelines. Also you have not provided up a definition of "military campaign" which proves that these are the battles in these categories are not campaigns. Besides, I don't think that the WP:SMALLCAT is the be all and end all of determining what should and shouldn't be categorized. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so now you're admitting that the cats meet the WP:OC/WP:SMALLCAT criteria--which are specifically for what shouldn't be a category --but you want an exception made that isn't the WP:SMALLCAT exception. That is clearly BS, also! And the exception you want is that they meet some sort of category notability, but the topics aren't even notable enough to have a corresponding WP article!! (More BS.) And you're ignoring that the categories are redundant with their campaignboxes--which is also a valid rationale not to have the small categories. (ignoring that is just ignorance). 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think User 198 brings up a good point: you have noted that the definitions for campaign that I provided are no good, but you yourself have not given a definition for campaign which we can use in determining that these categories are not campaigns. Mojoworker below gave a good explanation of what I have been trying to say, so any further discussion about whether or not these series of battles are campaigns can be based on his aguement. I also think User 198 is correct in that we can use criteria other than the WP:SMALLCAT or OC. Wild Wolf (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't recall seeing any statement where "User 198" requested I provide a definition, and regardless that's not a requirement for categories to meet WP:SMALLCAT criteria (i.e., theirs isn't a "good point"). Looks like you're admitting they all meet the SMALLCAT, right? And just claiming a fictitional exception 'SMALLCAT doesn't apply if the nominator doesn't answer a question'. What a bunch of BS. Likewise, Mojoworker doesn't have a good point--it's another red herring to claim the NPS groupings which were intentionally not named campaigns are campaigns and must have Wikipedia categories (he's even admitted below that 3 campaigns don't need categories). These "other criteria" aren't exceptions to the SMALLCAT rationale, and you "can use" them since WP discussion allows BS, but they aren't valid for keeping a small category. Do you even know what red herring means? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposed. The categorization scheme seemed to work for the past several years. See no need to fix something that's not broken. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose These are campaigns, devised by professional historians of the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service and listed at: http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm and the statement by 168.244.11.2 that "some are as small as just 1 battle, which can't in any way be considered a campaign" shows that you are confused about the meaning of a military campaign. This argument comes up from time to time on Campaigns with one or few battles. As you can see on the National Park Service list, there are many campaigns that have only one battle. It's important to understand what a Military campaign is and is not. It is not merely a list of battles. To over simplify, a campaign is strategic while a battle is tactical. A campaign can cover thousands of miles with zero, one, or few battles fought. It could be argued that the most successful campaign would achieve its goals with not a single battle fought and zero casualties on either side – but with the strategic aims of its planner fulfilled. These campaign lists were developed as they were for a reason, by professional historians, and changing them to be grouped, for example, geographically with other battles that are part of a different campaign, loses context and conflates campaigns which may have been carried out in different years and planned by different commanders. Mojoworker (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out by another user, the "professional historians" (sic) intentionally didn't name them campaigns, so to claim they are campaigns is more than dubious, and of course doesn't address the SMALLCAT issue (red herring is the term used a few days ago). And below you pointed out that not all campaigns need wikipedia categories (you identified 2 of the NPS groupings that don't have categories), so even you know that your opposition rationale is a red herring. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Both Mojoworker and Wild Wolf provide good arguments that these are campaigns. 76.7.237.55 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary, they haven't provided any evidence that they are campaigns --the evidence they provided regarding the historians are that the historians didn't name them campaigns, which is evidence against them being campaigns. Moreover, an argument that they are a campaign, good or not, is not a rationale for keeping a small category since campaigns don't require categories per se (Mojoworker even confirmed such categories aren't required). On the other hand, their opposing arguments identify their concurrence that the smallcat critiera clearly apply. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Battles of the Advance into East Tennessee of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: As with the above list, these categories with wordy titles that meet the WP:SMALLCAT deletion criteria are redundant (WP:OVERCAT) with the shorter-named Templates which have the identical contents. They don't appear to have corresponding main articles and it looks like someone went overboard regarding the categories for battles that weren't part of campaigns when developing the Category:Battles of... level of subcategories. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge, not delete all the articles in both sets of categories above into their theater/campaign categories, due to overcategorization. At the same time, make sure the articles get placed into all their correct categories that are now handled by the cateogies being merged from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) on 19:16, 5 May 2012
- Oppose and perhaps rename for the reason stated above. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming the categories to the overboard names won't alleviate the WP:OVERCAT -- they'll still meet the WP:SMALLCAT deletion criteria and be overcategorization at the new names. (Both of you oppositions don't address the identified overcategorization). 168.244.11.2 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, except rename the Tidewater one and the Chesapeake one. The only one that gives me pause is the Tidewater Campaign, which I've sometimes heard of as a real campaign, so I might rename that to Category:Tidewater Campaign. The Chesapeake one should not stay as is, but I think it could be renamed Category:Union Blockade since there was clearly a campaign to choke the maritime operations of the South, The rest seem pretty shaky as campaigns. Let's make sure the battles are all in the theater they should be in, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The navbox is named "Tidewater Operations", which is the name used throughout other Wikipedia articles, but again -- no Cat main exists and in addition to being misnamed in several ways, the category completely meets the WP:OC/WP:SMALLCAT criteria. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for the reasons listed by Wild Wolf above. These categories represent campaigns of the ACW, not random collections of battles as User 168 seems to be suggesting. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposed. The categorization scheme seemed to work for the past several years. See no need to fix something that's not broken. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose These are campaigns, devised by professional historians of the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service and listed at: http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm. See above for detail. Mojoworker (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As succintly put above: "Claiming that the ones which the historians didn't name campaigns meet any definition of the word campaign is unfounded since the "professional historians" intentionally didn't name them campaigns (many are just 1 battle!)--they named them "operations…", "demonstration", etc.64.134.54.27 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Even the Tidewater category that uses the word "campaign" here at WP wasn't named a campaign by the historians: it was named "Longstreet's Tidewater Operations". More opposition by irrelevance fallacies. 168.244.11.2 (talk) [reply]
- Oppose Both Mojoworker and Wild Wolf provide good arguments that these are campaigns. 76.7.237.55 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary, they haven't provided any evidence that they are campaigns --the evidence they provided regarding the historians are that the historians didn't name them campaigns, which is evidence against them being campaigns. Moreover, an argument that they are a campaign, good or not, is not a rationale for keeping a small category since campaigns don't require categories per se (Mojoworker even confirmed such categories aren't required). On the other hand, their opposing arguments identify their concurrence that the smallcat critiera clearly apply. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Battles of the Confederate Occupation of New Mexico of the American Civil War
- Category:Battles of the Operations in the Indian Territory of the American Civil War
- Category:Battles of the Operations Near Cache River, Arkansas of the American Civil War
- Category:Battles of the Operations to Control Indian Territory of the American Civil War
- Category:Battles of the Advance on Little Rock of the American Civil War
- Category:Battles of Marmaduke's First Expedition into Missouri of the American Civil War
- Category:Battles of Marmaduke's Second Expedition into Missouri of the American Civil War
- Category:Battles of the Operations in Northeast Missouri of the American Civil War
- Category:Battles of the Operations Near the White River of the American Civil War
- Category:Battles of the Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: As with the above lists, these categories with wordy titles that meet the WP:SMALLCAT deletion criteria are redundant (WP:OVERCAT) with the shorter-named Templates which have the identical contents. They don't appear to have corresponding main articles and it looks like someone went overboard regarding the categories for battles that weren't part of campaigns when developing the Category:Battles of... level of subcategories
- Delete since all 29 meet the small category deletion criteria (and not the exception) and are redundant with their campaignboxes. Also, the NPS groupings (about 20) to the right for advances, attacks, campaigns, demonstrations, expeditions, occupations, operations, and raids (in the order listed at the cited webpage) aren't WP categories, illustrating the red herring above that 'Wikipedia categories must be available for small groupings by the National Park Service' is entirely false, and not a valid rationale for keeping the WP:SMALLCAT categories above. The lack of those other WP categories illustrates another reason (inconsistency) to delete the nominated categories IAW WP:SMALLCAT. Claiming that the ones which the historians didn't name campaigns meet any definition of the word campaign is unfounded since the "professional historians" intentionally didn't name them campaigns (many are just 1 battle!)--they named them "operations…", "demonstration", etc. 64.134.54.27 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But note that in the list you provided, the "Pea Ridge Campaign" and the "Sand Creek Campaign" do have only one battle each, so the "professional historians" most certainly did name them campaigns. Further a majority of the campaigns in the NPS list don't actually use the word "campaign", so I'm not sure what your point is. But, to be honest, you are correct that the campaignboxes interpret the issue adequately and I don't really feel strongly that these categories be kept – I'm not sure how much value they provide, but conversely, I don't think they hurt anything either. Rather my point is that those contending that these are somehow not campaigns simply because they contain one or few battles, are patently mistaken and don't understand what a campaign is and is not. For example the Utah War of 1857-1858 had no battles at all, even though the aims of the United States were fulfilled. Were those 2,500 troops under Albert Sidney Johnston which moved out from Kansas all the way into Utah, somehow magically not involved in a military campaign? I once came across another example of a campaign with no battles, but the name escapes me at the moment. It took place somewhere in Eastern Europe. Basically, a revolutionary leader raised an army and advanced on the capitol city with the defending government troops melting away before the revolutionary army, until the revolutionary army reached and took control of the city. But it most certainly was a campaign. Mojoworker (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 12 May poster clearly made his point: your allegation that Wikipedia categories must be available for small groupings by the National Park Service is entirely false. You've even identified 2 campaigns that don't warrant categories, and have even identified they would meet SMALLCAT! And he also made his point that the historians literally don't consider the nominations campaigns because they didn't even name them campaigns! And you admit the Utah War was literally a war which is not a campaign of a war. Wow, talk about irrational opposition by presenting irrelevant info. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure exactly who you are addressing. I've never made any sort of allegation that "Wikipedia categories must be available for small groupings by the National Park Service". Perhaps you were addressing The Bushranger's comment just below here. But I did mention the Utah War, so I'll reply. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the fact that—whether or not they have the word "campaign" in the title—these are campaigns. Did you bother to read the title of the page at http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm? It's "Civil War Battle Summaries by Campaign". And the page description is: 380 Civil War battle summaries organized by campaign. And the Utah War is also known as the "Utah Campaign" (and the "Utah Expedition" among other names). And I'll repeat what I said just above: "I don't really feel strongly that these categories be kept – I'm not sure how much value they provide, but conversely, I don't think they hurt anything either. Rather my point is that those contending that these are somehow not campaigns simply because they contain one or few battles, are patently mistaken and don't understand what a campaign is and is not." I initially was responding to Mike Selinker's assertion to Wild Wolf that "None of these appear to be campaigns" and so I included the NPS link and tried to word my response in a diplomatic and helpful manner. I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide if these categories should be kept or not. Perhaps they should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT – I don't know and frankly, I don't much care. I'm not sure why you (and some other IPs) for some reason seem very keen to try to disparage those with opposing views and assert that these are somehow not campaigns – as if the word "campaign" somehow derails your proposal. If the deletion argument hinges on whether or not these are campaigns, then you should throw in the towel, since they most certainly are campaigns. Are you just being combative? Perhaps the collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that this is not the place for you. Would you feel better if I switched my !vote to neutral? Mojoworker (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per the exemption of WP:SMALLCAT for established category trees... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to agreeing these cats meet the speedy criteria you've also misidentified the exception (intentionally?), by failing to identify "overall" acceptance is required which doesn't apply in any way. These Battles of Operations… et al subcategories for the ACW are by no means "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", as the overall scheme of such subcategories has instead largely had rejections (the opposite of "overall accepted"). In particular, dozens of them with the names Battles of … Campaign of the American Civil War have been rejected outright, and the additional set of NPS groupings that have never had WP categories were not accepted. So the Battles of Operations… et al scheme of subcategories isn't in any way "overall accepted". Here's a synopsis of the number of rejections (the other set of subcats that weren't created are listed above in a table--nice job to whoever noticed them!):
- >25 for Category:Battles of the…Campaign in the American Civil War: Category:Battles of the Appomattox Campaign… through :Category:Battles of Sheridan's Valley Campaign…
- >4 for Category:Battles of the…Raid…: Category:Battles of Burbridge's Raid… through Category:Battles of Wilson's Raid…
- >3 Category:Battles of Operations… (most of the nominated categories are in this set)
- >4 Category:Battles of advances, expeditions, occupations, offensives, etc.
- the total of the two sets w/o categories gives about 50 rejected-to-40 existing ratio which indicates a LACK of "overall" acceptance (closer to overall rejection) 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I think that the voting has been against deleting these categories, so I don't think this note is even necessary. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all of these: per WP:SMALLCAT. The red herring claim that these are campaigns--in addition to being inaccurate--is irrelevant since the other small NPS webpage groupings such as Category:Lynchburg Campaign, Category:Pea Ridge Campaign, Category:Sand Creek Campaign, etc aren't Wikipedia categories. 72.37.249.108 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Those who want to delete these categories still haven't given a definition of "military campaign" that we should be following in this discussion. Besides which, Mojoworker's objection following the first batch of categories concerning the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service, classification scheme has yet to be answered. Continually bring up SMALLCAT without addressing the objections of those in opposition to the proposed change is not really trying to form a consensus as I understand it. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're admitting they all meet the SMALLCAT criteria (which is a valid deletion rationale), and are faulting people for identifying that valid rationale? Moreover, a definition of campaign isn't necessary, since all the categories meet the WP:SMALLCAT criteria and not the exception (there's no requirement to define anything--the SMALLCAT criteria are already defined!) There is no exception that all advances, offensives, operations, campaigns, are to be wikipedia categories, nor is there such a requirement for all the NPS groupings--most which weren't even named campaigns because they aren't. So not only has all the opposition been successfully rebutted--none have claimed the categories fail to meet the WP:SMALLCAT criteria. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Both Mojoworker and Wild Wolf provide good arguments that these are campaigns. 76.7.237.55 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary, they haven't provided any evidence that they are campaigns --the evidence they provided regarding the historians are that the historians didn't name them campaigns, which is evidence against them being campaigns. Moreover, an argument that they are a campaign, good or not, is not a rationale for keeping a small category since campaigns don't require categories per se (Mojoworker even confirmed such categories aren't required). On the other hand, their opposing arguments identify their concurrence that the smallcat critiera clearly apply. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note for Deleting Administrator
[edit]
NOTE FOR DELETING ADMINISTRATOR (since there has been no opposition to the WP:OC/WPSMALLCAT rationale): User:Mike Selinker provides the unnecessary request to check that each of the above category's articles are "at least somewhere in the Category:Battles of the American Civil War tree", of which they are all already nominally part (e.g., as part of the Category:Battles of the Main Western Theater of the American Civil War)--so that check isn't necessary. He also unnecessarily repeats an invalid concern to "at least make sure each of the articles are in the theater that they belong to" -- but that is already the case via the aforementioned nominal categorization. A different issue not identified by his wild goose chase recommendations is: if before a category is deleted it is in a campaign branch such as Category:Campaigns of the Main Western Theater of the American Civil War, then the articles--which aren't about campaigns--shouldn't be upmerged into that Category:Campaigns… parent. That 'don't upmerge to a parent cat that doesn't apply to the article being recategorized' step is an often-missed exception during cat merging that causes mis-categorization (is it even in the procedure?) Likewise, you'll notice that articles are already in their state's civil war category, so as for the normal merging procedure, code such as "[[Category:Alabama in the American Civil War]] won't need added to the articles (does Cydebot already check for that? -- it's "About me" doesn't describe the algorithm.) 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could you please attempt to be more civil? Everything you write is an unwarranted attack, especially on me, for reasons I do not understand. I tried to reach out on your talk page, but received no answer. Also, there are many oppositions above, so the assumption that this will be done by a "deleting administrator" is really presumptuous. We have standards of behavior on CfD. Any chance you might go along with them?--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your false claim that "everything" I write is an "unwarranted attack" is blatantly false (and unless you are an idiot, you already know that)--but keep making false statements and your statements will keep getting comments. And you didn't "reach out", you likewise falsely accused me of picking a fight with you. Clearly baiting and not "reaching out". Simply identifying what is wrong with what is written is not an attack on the person (its not even about the person). Your lack of understanding is not my problem -- it is yours. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As with your repeated wild goose chase comments regarding the recategorization, note User:Fayenatic london also feels it's OK to communicate to the admin regarding deletion. More BS to claim "presumption" violates "standards of behavior". But of course blatantly false statements by you are something you'll claim you don't have to stop ("go along with" with those standards), right? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: Please also see Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Note for those admins who process speedy nominations, in case you haven't already. – Fayenatic London (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's another Delete concurrence since the section Fraynetic London has cited is for the deleting administrators to check for "backlinks" to articles (i.e., so "What links here" hyperlinks are deleted and won't be red when the categories are deleted). Doesn't Cydebot give the administrator that info, also (i.e., so he can leave the redlink in discussions such as this)? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The listing of rationale clearly indicates all agree the WP:SMALLCAT applies and not the exception (even the opposers' red herrings--which are just irrelevant or even outright false grasps at straws--don't rebut the SMALLCAT), so this is WP:SNOWBALL for SMALLCAT delete. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, not all agree that SMALL CAT applies, as the above discussions show. By my count, for the first batch there are four opposed and only two for deltion. For the second batch, it is five against and two for deletion. For the third batch, it is eight against and four for deltion. The consensus for this discussion seems to be in favor of keeping these categories, not deleting them, since they are campaigns and come under the exemption of "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" and you have yet to prove that these categories are not part of an "accepted sub-categorization scheme". Also, as I believe someone (perhaps several) has pointed out before, SMALL CAT is not the sole and absolute criteria for determining categorization. It is also my understanding of Wikipedia:Civility that calling other users "idiots" (as User 168 has done with Mike Selinker) or calling the opposition's arguements "BS" is a violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette guidelines. I suggest that User 168 reads these pages before continuing with this discussion. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2012 (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.