April 13
Category:Palaeographic letter variants
- 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Looking at the current contents of the category, I see at least Yogh, Thorn (letter), Vend (letter), and Wynn where I can't understand how they are "variants". They could be removed from the category, but is it really WP:defining for a palaeographic letter to be a variant? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:11, 13 April 2021 (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:Dudley–Winthrop family
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Dudley–Winthrop family
- Nominator rationale This is not a family, this is people who distantly connect back to an ancestor several hundred years ago, with no rhyme or reason as to whom is included and who is not. For example James E. Faust is a direct descendant of Edward Partridge. True, that is not explained in either of our articles on them, but this work, Bell, James P. (1999). In the Strength of the Lord: The Life and Teachings of James E. Faust. Deseret Book Company. ISBN 1-57345-580-6., fully explains it. The article on Edward Patridge has atrocious sourcing. The extensive section of his relatives has zero sourcing. I am about to revamp much of that with better more academic sourcing. However the main take away is that this is not in any way a coherent family unit. It is a way to link people who share ancestry at so far a remove in any of their lines in a way that they would never think of themselves as a family. It is not like the Churchills who intentionally repeated a name like Winston after 300 years. Just because we can trace the way John Kerry, Herbert Hoover and Oliver Wendell Holmes were all related to each other does not mean they form a unified family in any meaningful way of using this term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the guiding principle here should be whether the family is notable enough to have its own article: compare Spencer family with Dudley–Winthrop family. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or heavily purge) -- the Dudley–Winthrop family was highly notable in the early colonial history of one colony. The 17th century members of that family might be worth a category, but distant descents are wholly NN. We have in the past deleted descendants of George III. The real problem is that such descents are too common. 300 years means about 10 generations. If each person had two children, in the 10th generation there would be 2^10 members, just over 1000 to which add another 1000 for the earlier generations. This cannot provide a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Family categories should be limited to people born within the family or marrying one of its members. Not every descendant of the family. For example Category:Howard family (English aristocracy) covers hundreds of members of this long-lived family. But not descendants born in families who intermarried with them. Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2021 (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:Regattas
- 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Overlapping topics. A regatta is a series of boat races (where a boat race is a single contest between boats start to finish). However, no boat race (by this meaning) that I know if is notable on its own. For example, The Boat Race is actually a series of races between the men and women. Possibly all notable boat races are actually regattas, whether or not that word is in the name. However, I think we should use the more widely understood term "boat race" rater than the specialist term "regatta." Also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Category:Rowing regattas. Jfhutson (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't merge, yet. Discussion to merge the two articles is ongoing at Talk:Boat racing#Merger proposal, and any action on the categories should not take place until the article discussion is concluded. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2021 (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:Joshua Reynolds
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by association. 11 of the 15 articles here are people who simply had some form of association with the category's eponym: members of his family, people who modelled for him, people who studied his work hundreds of years after his death, etc. — but that's not a legitimate basis for categorizing them this way, as being associated with someone else is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person — and one more is a broad aesthetic style movement that he was certainly part of, but which isn't uniquely his own and isn't categorized for any other artist who was part of it, and thus isn't somehow more strongly defined by Joshua Reynolds having been part of it than by e.g. Gainsborough or Rubens having been part of it. But once the biographies and the genre article are purged, all that will be left is one statue of him, a house he once lived in, a subcategory for his paintings and the head biographical article about Joshua Reynolds himself, which is not enough content to justify an eponymous category. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there is only one topic article apart from the eponymous article. No objection to recreating when we have more than five topic articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a non-defining grab bag of articles. No conceptual objection to recreating if we ever get to 5+ solid articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most articles would come under People associated with Joshua Reynolds, which would fail WP:OCASSOC. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2021 (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:Battles on Czech lands
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Battles on Czech lands to Category:Battles in the Czech lands
- Nominator's rationale: "The" is needed per Category:History of the Czech lands and subcategories use "Battles in". TSventon (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- So this is now a dynastic category, not a geographic category? Every subdivision of Silesia that ever had a battle could end up here. Is that the intent? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Laurel Lodged, the "Czech lands" covered by the Wikipedia article are "more or less co-extensive with the territory of the modern-day Czech Republic", rather than the "Lands of the Bohemian Crown", which included the whole of Silesia. TSventon (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It's not really a mistake as the terms can be used interchangeably. The lands of the Bohemian Crown "are now sometimes referred to in scholarship as the Czech lands" and Czech lands says "Czech texts use the term to refer to any territory ruled by the Kings of Bohemia, i.e., the lands of the Bohemian Crown". Either term would include the whole of Silesia until 1742 and could be classified as a former country. Classifying Czech history is complicated, so I am undecided on whether the "Battles on Czech lands" category is needed. TSventon (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "sometimes". I don't like that. I think that we need more precision. What's wrong with "Military history of the Czech Republic"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion of the category is certainly an option. It would leave the subcategories in the Bohemian and Moravian tree, ultimately in the tree of the Czech Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laurel Lodged and TSventon: yes I agree with deletion. (TSventon: when you ping, you must sign that paragraph, otherwise the ping will not work.) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcocapelle, thanks, I somehow managed to fail to ping you twice. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laurel Lodged:, do you agree with deletion. TSventon (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "The" is needed in the category name. Dimadick (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2021 (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:Companies in the Nasdaq Next Generation 100
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Categorization based on non-notable stock index and applied by mostly-SPA; in no case is the category defining for any of these companies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Companies can be in many minor indexes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The 100 is unlikely to be stable and fixed, so that this is likely to need regular maintenance. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2021 (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.
World Athletics
- 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: harmonize with the new World Athletics branding since 2020. If impraticable, please delete this request. Nordat (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support organiser has been renamed (NB: I have fixed some typos and dashes in the proposed names). SFB 21:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for the reasons given above by Nordat and SFB. Jozape (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2021 (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:Iranian-language encyclopedias
- 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This category relates to the Iranian language family and should be merged with its parent as Wikipedia does not have a Category:Encyclopedias by language family. Wikipedia also has Category:Iranian encyclopedias for encyclopedias in Iran and Category:Persian encyclopedias for encyclopedias in the Persian language. TSventon (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2021 (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:Populated places in Elisabethpol Governorate
- 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. (I'm always impressed when a Wikipedian acknowledges that they have changed their mind.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Reverse a bad idea of mine. A 19th century entity in the Russian Empire. Potentially every village in present day Azerbaijan that used to be in the governate could be added to it. It would be unwieldy to categorise every Azeri village with every category for every sub-national entity that ever existed in the area. Listify instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2021 (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:Bethel Music songs
- 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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Bethel music is a record label and we don't do songs by record label. If appropriate, happy to see this renamed Bethel Music singles. Richhoncho (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The category you refer to does not group the songs released by Bethel Music as a record label, but it groups the songs that were performed by and credited to Bethel Music as a musical act exclusively. It does not include all the songs that were released through the record label. Yard105 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yard105 Not what the article says, it says it is a record label. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Richhoncho The lead for the Bethel Music article should be revised because the name Bethel Music refers to the record label as well as the worship collective that has been releasing music under the name, for reference jeffroberts.com/artists/bethel-music. --Yard105 (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bethel Music is credited as an artist on Billboard chart history pages.[1]. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Alerted to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Not an artist, but they do have songs associated with them, and being a Bethel Music song is a defining characteristic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Yard105's rationale. QuietHere (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Yard105's rationale. --Just N. (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2021 (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:Volcanic eruptions
- 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: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The "Volcanic eruptions" and "Volcanic events" categories seem to be talking about more or less the same thing, and it's difficult to say what should be in one but not the other. Both are sparsely populated. Merging in the other direction is fine by me, though "events" seems more inclusive? -- Beland (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per above and reading the content of the categories. Not the 'same thing' Hmains (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2021 (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:Redirect-Class Emoji flags
Butterflies by non-island country
- 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: merge per Good Ol’factory. – Fayenatic London 20:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete:
- Category:Butterflies of Bangladesh
- Category:Butterflies of Canada
- Category:Butterflies of China
- Category:Butterflies of Ecuador
- Category:Butterflies of India
- Category:Butterflies of Iran
- Category:Butterflies of Laos
- Category:Butterflies of Mexico
- Category:Butterflies of Pakistan
- Category:Butterflies of Turkey
- Category:Butterflies of the United States
- Category:Butterflies of Vietnam
Since butterflies don't know anything about the borders of these countries, many of them will have ranges which cross national borders to the point of making these category divisions meaningless.Animal lover 666 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per the recent precedent and the nomination. We should do the same for similar categories of other animals. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge most of these. For example, Bangladesh and India might be amalgamated as south Asia; Laos and Vietnam as SE Asia; etc. We have however steered away from national cagtegories, except for indigenous species (found nowhere else). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Those categories reproduce scientific data about butterflies' locations. Flying insects are crossing borders -- so what? It's not about endemic species. It's about official countings which are documented in that states. --Just N. (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to regional categories per Peterkingiron's suggestion. Dimadick (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambivalent about this, because there are articles such as List of butterflies of Bangladesh, so listing butterflies by non-island countries is being done in Wikipedia. I would feel better about the proposal if it wasn't for straight-up deletion. If eliminated, I would prefer that these be merged to regional or continental categories. Some of the articles I looked at are not in the applicable regional or continental categories. As far as I can tell, the appropriate merge targets would be:
- Additionally, the list articles and list categories need to be merged to the appropriate parent category:
- Support merge per Good Olfactory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge per Good Olfactory. This is, I think, what we have done before and not delete and lose navigational direction. Hmains (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge per Good Ol’factory. I agree with those above who seem to suggest that creatures that fly (at the very least) likely are not limited in movement by political borders. I have a vague recollection that something similar has been done with Category:Birds by country. - jc37 02:07, 8 May 2021 (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.
---
A shitty idea, made by some noob who doesn't know anything about lepidoptera !
I'll better leave this gang againb !
Not astonished that nobody put it in discussion in the lepidoptera section of wikipedia. Those guys want to continue their dicatatorship.
I'm so tired (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is poorly though out. National organizations create lists to document and understand the flora and fauna within their borders, often aiding conservation efforts. The statement about 'butterflies not knowing anything about borders' is meaningless from a research point of view. Many Lepidoptera are local specialists relying on specific plant communities and are not widely dispersed at a continental level. I suspect there was little or no input on this discussion from people specializing in Lepidoptera. User:Animal lover 666 did similar damage to the to national moth lists.Walkabout14 (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Beabadoobee
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary per WP:OCEPON with too little content, especially since the songs and songs written categories each only contain one article and it's the same article at that. Existing subcats are sufficiently linked. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see why this should be deleted. WP:OCEPON itself states: "Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." Now there are 4 categories (the established convention) within the main category, correct? By my understanding, whether or not enough articles exist is irrelevant in this instance, as there are enough subcategories to justify the category's creation. The number of items within specific categories mentioned could almost certainly be expanded—several singles have charted and are notable enough to have their own articles. Forgive the lengthy reply, I'm just confused. Sean Stephens (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this aid navigation with only 4 distinct articles total? More song articles wouldn't justify an eponymous category because they'd all be placed in the songs subcategory anyway. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If there are only four articles (one album, one EP, one song and her BLP) to categorize, then an eponymous category isn't necessary. Where something like this becomes warranted is in the case of someone like Category:David Bowie, Category:Leonard Cohen or Category:The Beatles, who are so highly meganotable that there's a lot of spinoff content that warrants artist-related categorization while falling outside of the standard albums/songs/BLP scheme: they have to consider not just albums and songs, but documentary films and books about them, tribute albums to them, independently notable members of their immediate families, people who are notable specifically as collaborators (Lenny's constant parade of female backup singers, Brian Epstein, Mick Ronson, etc.), filmographies, spinoff award lists, and all kinds of other stuff that does not fit into any of the standard "artist albums" or "artist songs" categories but still needs artist-related categorization regardless. That's when an eponymous category becomes warranted. But if all an artist has for spinoff content is the bog-standard albums/songs categories, where the BLP is already linking to the song and the album anyway, then an eponymous category is not justified yet. If this were all it took, then every musician who has an article at all would automatically have to have a dedicated eponymous category, which is not useful and does not help to facilitate navigation. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearcat: Thank you. That is much clearer than has been explained previously. I think I understand now. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2021 (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:Edinburgh Festival Fringe venues
- 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/upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Edinburgh Festival Fringe venues
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCVENUE)
- The Edinburgh Festival Fringe was established in 1947 and is the world's largest arts festival and is a huge logistical undertaking in Edinburgh. We do have the category tree Category:Festival venues for purpose built facilities but this is different. Old facilities like St Giles' Cathedral (consecrated 1243) and the Quaker Meeting House (built 1866) are not remotely defined by this later usage and even newer facilities like Meadowbank Stadium and Traverse Theatre are not defined by the annual event. There is already a separate list article, List of Edinburgh Festival Fringe venues, for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2021 (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:Orders, decorations, and medals of North Carolina
- 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT)
- I have no conceptual objection to either category as the equivalent ones for Texas and Hawaii are well populated. Right now NC has two crosslinked awards (Order of the Long Leaf Pine & North Carolina Award) while Utah has just one (Utah Governor's Medal for Science and Technology). I did find some state-wide high school awards from each state but I don't think they're notable so there's little growth potential here. But, if I'm wrong and either ever gets up to 5+ articles, no objection to recreating them later. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge per nom, and these aren't part of a complete by-state series. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification This nom is to merge not delete, so the articles stay in both the state awards and UT/NC specific category trees. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2021 (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.