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: Makes no sense in isolation. These articles should be dispersed to the categories relevant to the countries where they were deemed aliens. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or populate. Large number of people were considered enemy aliens in many countries at the start of WWII (and also WWI I believe), there is therefore potential for a larger category, which could be subdivided in national people interned by Foo categories among others (not all enemy aliens were interned, but for those who were it was clearly defining). In its current state with 4 articles the category serves little purpose. Place Clichy (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Agree with Place Clichy that at best it would make sense for people who were interned, so rename if kept to something that reflects the internment. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being defined as an enemy alien generally seems to have been a temporary state of affairs, so not very defining in itself, and different terminology was (is?) used by different governments. There are already some categories for people who were interned.Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- preferably after finding a replacement category for each. We have 4 articles - One for US actions; 3 British ones: 1 WWI explusion; 2 WWII internments. UK interned most enemy aliens, many on Isle of Man, though some of them were in fact Jewish refugees, hostile to the Nazis. Japanese Americans were similarly interned. I suspect there is scope for a whole tree here, but this is not a good start for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have thought that the category would contain articles related to the designation or treatment of enemy aliens, rather than putting in people who were deemed so for a small portion of their lives. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2020 (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 latn
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.
Oppose for now. @Le Deluge, I wholly agree with the substance of your rationale, viz. that everyone on en.wiki should be familiar with Latin script. Bluntly, anyone who isn't highly proficient in Latin script fails WP:CIR and has probably no business editing any part of en.wp.
Weak oppose - While I see no point in levels 0 and n, levels 1 to 4 make sense given that there are Wikipedians whose native language does not use Latin script - Russian, Thai, Chinese, Indian, etc. As such, these levels at least are useful. Grutness...wha?02:12, 26 November 2020 (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:Pre-Islamic Pakistan
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.
Delete per nom and WP:OVERLAPCAT. There is already plenty of content relative to e.g. ancient and prehistoric history of Pakistan and this news category does not fit well in this structure. The Indus Valley civilization for instance is one of the oldest known civilization and definitely belongs in Pakistan history categories, but current categories are sufficient. Place Clichy (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2020 (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:Video games featured on Angry Video Game Nerd
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: A game being reviewed is not WP:DEFINING for the game, perhaps it could be appropriate to turn this into a list but it definitely doesn't belong as a category. Le Deluge (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to disagree. As Angry Video Game Nerd is one of the most popular web series on the internet, accumulating views ranging from 3 to 7 million views for the first hundred or so episodes, I’d say being reviewed on the show is more than defining. Games such as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde on NES are perhaps most known for being featured on the show. Terry g. bishop talk page 09:00, 25 November 2020 (EST)
Delete per nom. AVGN uploads every few weeks, so being one of the 100+ games a certain YouTuber happens to talk about is not defining. The same would go for essentially every gaming channel. IceWelder [✉] 17:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could understand an argument for this being a list. But it doesn't meet the defining characteristic to warrant a category. - X201 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 (duplicate !vote) As for the x for all y argument, the Angry Video Game Nerd would be the primary reason for page views for a particular article, so compiling a category for them in a streamline manner will be most convenient for not only viewers of the show, but those who want to see what source of outstanding notability the game has. Episodes are also not released every "few weeks" and are more so sporadic depending on the year. The List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes, the list is far too wordy and lengthy, and does not specify particular games reviewed in compilation episodes like the Sega CD episode (S02E25), among others. If this is believed to cause inflation, even though it won’t be an issue, there are category’s such as Living people that are also inundated. As retrogaming is much more niche and cultish than something mainstream like a film review or modern gaming review series, a category is much more fitting. If one was to list every feature a game or console has every had on any popular review show, then it would get excessive. However, as the Nerd is a staple among the retrogaming community, a category would seem the most effective. — Terry g. bishop talk page 09:54, 26 November 2020 (EST)
Taking the Sega CD episode as your example. AVGN would not be "the primary reason for page views" to Night Trap, the primary reason (as it has always been) is because it was (incorrectly) the poster child for the 1993 Senate hearing into violent video games. Is AVGN "the primary reason for page views" to Sonic CD? Again, I'd say that was because it was the biggest selling title on the console and that fact that Sonic has a massive fanbase. As for the other games covered in that episode, seeing as the AVGN episode is dated 2007, what was the primary reason for the thousands and thousands of page views before 2007? - X201 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the same logic that was used for deleting similar categories for films features on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (see [1], [2] and others). The inclusion of the work on the later series was determined to be a non-defining trait. --Masem (t) 15:36, 26 November 2020 (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:Organizations based in the French West Indies
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:Recipients of the Order of the Equatorial Star
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:Recipients of the Silver War Badge
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.
Over a million of these awards were given out according to the main article, Silver War Badge. The award was a combination wound decoration/campaign medal for British soldiers discharged after injury from WWI. Unfortunately, non-fatal injury in war is far too common to be defining. I placed the current category contents right here if anyone wants to start a list article but, given the potential size, I don't think that's viable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2020 (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.
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
