Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 5 June 7 >

June 6

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Old cat, never expanded. WWGB ( talk) 23:38, 6 June 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.

Category:Songs written in style of folk traditional 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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category, contains only one entry after many months. WWGB ( talk) 23:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Whole can of worms with this cat. Or as Big Bill Broonzy said, "Of course they are folk songs, I've never heard horses sing!" You should have nominated Category:Songs with disputed authorship at the same time, which is another can of worms. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:46, 10 June 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.

Category:Songs with lyrics by Robert Burns

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 and populate. The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category, contains only one entry after many months. WWGB ( talk) 23:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Three of the articles specifically say that Burns wrote words to existing melodies, I suspect the other 3 were as well. That's lyrics not poems in my book. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:05, 12 June 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.

Category:Development projects in the United Arab Emirates

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 Fayenatic london. The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We do not have an article on a development project so it is unclear what the scope is. Construction project exists as a redirect, so it is a possible choice and it is populated. However, it may well be better to simply rename to Category:Buildings and structures under construction in the United Arab Emirates, as a part of Category:Buildings and structures under construction by country, which is what many of these are. There seems to be a lot of overlap between these categories and using only one would improve navigation. The possible exception would be if we wanted to remove the major proposed projected projects where no construction has started. In that case we could simply use the existing Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United Arab Emirates. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:45, 6 June 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.

Category:Early Islam era poets

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/merge to Category:Poets of the early Islamic period. I will manually upmerge the contents of the women's category to Category:Islam and women and Category:Medieval women poets but not to Category:Arabic-language women poets as both articles already appear in Category:Pre-Islamic Arabian women poets, which is a subcategory. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current names are short but ungrammatical. Parent was renamed from Category:Arabic poets by era to Category:Arabic poets by period (see May 26 "Categories by era"). The surrounding categories are being speedily renamed but this does not meet the criteria. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:47, 6 June 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.

Category:Irish abortion providers

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: upmerge to both parents, without prejudice to recreation if the category can be better populated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: By its own scope definition, this category fails. For a category that supposedly caters for "notable physicians, clinics, and organizations whose primary practice is or was in the provision of abortion", it spectacularly fails to list even one article that meets the criteria. Only one nurse is listed. Secondary rationale is per WP:Small. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:49, 6 June 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.

Theatres of World War II

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. This is a split discussion, but the issue is merely one of grammar and punctuation rather than one of fact. There's an overall desire for some sort of change, with a slight preference for the lowercase "t" and the "of," so I'm going with that.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The current titles are awkward constructions and could be improved by changing to the Foo Theatre of World War II format. We should not, in my opinion, defer strictly to article naming since the relevant articles are not named consistently (for example, see European Theatre of World War II; Middle East Theatre of World War II; Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II; Pacific War; South-East Asian theatre of World War II; American Theater (1939–1945); and so on). I'm not sure whether the capitalization or spelling of 'Theater'/'theater' or 'Theatre'/'theatre' matters, since there is no clear standard within either the main or category namespaces (for instance, compare to Category:Campaigns and theatres of World War I). -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:44, 6 June 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.

Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category was nominated at WP:CFD/S to be renamed to Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk; however, I think that a more general discussion is needed in order to clearly define the scope of this category. I have notified the category creator, as well as WikiProjects Economics and Finance. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Coming from Wikiproject Finance, I oppose deletion, and I would like to know what the rationale is for a rename before commenting further. Thanks, Pine ✉ 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Category titles should be grammatically correct constructions, not outline-like: for example, we have Category:People of World War II instead of Category:World War II - People. At this time, I don't favor deletion or any particular name-change, since it's not clear to me what the scope of this category is (i.e., what articles/topics it should contain) and why it needs to be separate from Category:Systemic risk. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Category Creator Comment The category "Systemic Risk" is itself a relatively new area, however it clearly exists. The subcategory, Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets also clearly exists and stands alone. For just a "sliver" of what is available, in the behavioral & social area, see: http://www.argentumlux.org/documents/Lo__2011__-_Fear__Greed__and_the_Financial_Crisis-_A_Cognitive_Neurosciences_Perspective.pdf
    Much of the Systemic Risk category was born in the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and parallel regulation in the EU and Asia in response to the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis erased approximately 25% of accumulated wealth in the U.S. (and arguably, the world,) and has left a legacy of suboptimal growth that's likely to persist for a decade or longer.
    A new agency inside of the U.S. Treasury, Office of Financial Research, is specifically charged with guiding research in ways to reduce Systemic risk, see also Category:Systemic risk. Likewise the UK and Asia parallel regulatory organizations will also be conducting their own research on all aspects of systemic risk.
    A critical aspect of avoiding situations like the 2008 meltdown is the understanding of the behavioral and social facets that ultimately lead to panic, contagion and mistrust. When financial markets become chaotic they stop allocating capital into its highest and best use, based on a relatively rational perception of risk and return. The chaotic episodes extract a large cost, especially since in the wake of chaos it takes considerable time to "become calm" once more, and for more rational investor behavior to resume.
    I created Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets to be a child classification (Narrower Term) of the parent (Broader Term) general category Systemic risk, which I also created. I note that both areas are indeed rapidly evolving.
    Academic work in the behavioral and social aspects of individual investing (vs. being oriented to the systemic risk aspects) is however extremely well established. How those aspects apply to limiting system wide risk (systemic risk) is fairly new. In the context of individual investing it's often termed Behavioral economics or Behavioral finance.
    To the best of my knowledge the Library of Congress Subject Headings have stumbled around in the entire Behavioral economics / Behavioral finance headings areas. It my strong belief that this area, contained in the broader context of systemic risk, is sufficiently new and emerging. It therefore greatly benefits from a rather "loose" Folksonomy approach.
    In taking a first shot at authoring Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets I was frankly amazed at the article coverage in WikiPedia that appear to be 1. extremely well established subjects contained in themselves and 2. have direct importance and clear relevance to the examination of the Behavioral & Social aspects of Systemic Risk. As a "body of knowledge" WikiPedia has a great deal of content that systemic risk investigators, such as OFR staff, academics and international regulators, it can actually enable many people to "go to school on" and draw from them.
    The approach taken at the Office of Financial Research is initially likely to be rather traditional, strict academic. The study of panic and contagion however will be greatly enhanced by considering in considerable depth the specific behavioral and social aspects. [Again see the above referenced paper by Dr. Lo of MIT. BTW Lo was named one the top 100 influential people in the world by Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2111975_2111976_2112160,00.html]]. The probe into Systemic Risk in all its facets is therefore best informed by the Wisdom of the crowd (with WikiPedia a clear testament to the benefit of that approach) via its classic Folksonomy approach. Rick ( talk) 22:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Further Comment - Category Creator Comment Above explains what belongs in Systemic Risk and its sub category Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets. Just wanted to further explain the rational. Classical economics more or less assumes rational behavior. Behavioral economics / Behavioral finance attempts to model actual human behavior.
    Here is a more "folksy" yet informed reason. Economics is steeped in econometrics, which is largely reliant on math and statistics. Systemic Risk on first pass appears to be really just a sub segment of Economics. However, when you look at chaos, contagion and trust these issues are clearly relevant as disciplines all in themselves and not necessarily derived from math and statistics (at least in the first order). They essentially stand alone.
    Is Psychological warfare a legitimate child element of the broader area Warfare?
    Note - I claim no expertise on what is correct vs. incorrect wikipedia grammar construction here. However I will point out that what is standing now has demonstrable value and utility just as it is. I also note that having a pink box emblazoned upon the top of the page with "This category is being considered for deletion." as it first line brings all forward momentum in this area to a halt.
    If its just a grammatical issue here, where the use of a dash is found to be objectionable, I have no problem with the title of the page being changed to whatever is deemed superior. I'd hope the system would update the substantial number of linked pages? Rick ( talk) 02:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for your detailed response. I think I now have a better understanding of the category's scope, though I'm uncertain whether categorization or a new article would be the best way to capture and/or present this information. In response to your implicit question: the purpose of my nomination was to request discussion, not necessarily deletion, but I was unable to modify the wording of the deletion notice (the pink box). Best, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm not an expert in the area, but at minimum, it seems to me that this should be renamed to Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk. However, just from my initial purusal of the category and an attempt to understand in in the context of some of the articles in it, it seems to me that categorizing much of what is categorized here is a case of giving undue weight to this one particular topic. (In Wikipedia-ese, it doesn't really seem to be "defining" for a lot of the topics that are in the category.) For that reason, deletion might be a good idea and instead a sourced article might be the best way to start this topic off in Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Response I have no objection to a title change to Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk. Am opposed to total deletion as the topic has demonstrated existence by outside published articles in well refereed journals. Am totally open to exactly what articles are listed in the category page, and am eagerly looking forward to additional worldwide participation by experts in that specific area. Would argue that broader coverage would help inform current research spending. Any topic affecting 25% of the worlds wealth (the estimate of what was lost due to systemic risk problems starting in 2008) strikes me as very important. One could argue that the Behavioral and Social facets of the worldwide market crash (and other market aberrations), and the subsequent recovery process is a pinnacle topic for researchers, lawmakers and agency rule writers to forthrightly address. Rick ( talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk for the purposes of formatting.. ampersands are awful! The category creator seems to have thoroughly researched the field in question, and I believe we should give the creator the benefit of the doubt to prove the worth of this category. This topic is really out of my field of expertise, so I would like to hear some additional "expert" voices on the existence or non-existence of this topic. CaseyPenk ( talk) 07:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Response Want to repeat, have no problem changing the title. I too would welcome additional qualified expertise here. Experts are out there, but not in great numbers. And they are not wikipedia heavy posters. They are exceptionally busy doing research and crafting effective regulation. Andrew Lo at MIT is a great start. I'm positive this topic is under ample research in UK and Euro regulatory area. Rick ( talk) 06:55, 23 June 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.

Category:Hispanic and Latino American female pornographic film actors

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: upmerge to Category:American female pornographic film actors and Category:Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorisation. No doubt there probably is such a thing as 'Latina pornography', but this strikes me as an unnecessary triple intersection of occupation+gender+ethnicity. The contents can be upmerged to the parent categories. Robofish ( talk) 12:08, 6 June 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.

English football clubs by county

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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
List of 40 categories
(This list includes all of the sub-cats of Category:Football clubs in England by county, except for two which already use the proposed new format: Category:Football clubs in London‎ and Category:Football clubs in Bristol‎)
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to the match the "Foo in/of countyname" convention of most other subcats of Category:Categories by county of England (see e.g. Category:Education in England by county, Category:Civil parishes in England by county, Category:History of England by county, Category:Schools in England by county, Category:Sports venues in England by county).
The new format is also easier to read, because e.g. "Surrey football clubs" is too easily misread as "Surrey Football Club". Putting the territorial name first works a little better when an adjectival form is used, as with "English football clubs" or "Spanish football clubs", but most English counties do not have a widely-used adjectival form. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
WikiProject Football/England task force has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:51, 6 June 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.

Category:Category:Speakers of state legislatures in the United States

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: speedy delete ( criterion G6: technical deletion, including "pages unambiguously created in error". -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No need for redirects from names of Category:Category: types עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:59, 6 June 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.

Category:Fictional speakers of Klingon

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: Listify and delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No other languages, real or fictional, has a similar category - the other categories listed here refer to Speaker (politics), not to speakers of specific languages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 6 June 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.

Adding hyphens to compound adjectives

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: speedy rename ( criterion C2.A) since the objection was withdrawn and 48 hours have passed. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 06:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some opposed speedies. These are essentially grammar clean-ups. The term "XXXX period" is not hyphenated when it is a noun. But when it is an adjective, it is a compound adjective and hence is hyphenated. Thus: " Edo period" (noun); but "Edo-period works" (adjective, with "works" being the noun). The opposing editor pointed out that the articles do not hyphenate, which is true, and that is because the terms are nouns in that format. But in these category names they are compound adjectives. This is covered by the MOS at MOS:HYPHEN. (Three of the nominations also propose changing from "in" to "of" for consistency.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
copy of speedy nomination
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:Wikipedia requested photographs in District of Columbia

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 Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in District of Columbia into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Washington, D.C., and merge Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of District of Columbia into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of Washington, D.C.. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Currently there are multiple redundant categories for photographs in Washington, D.C. I recommend combining Categories for:

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in District of Columbia with Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Washington, D.C. as well as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of District of Columbia with Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of Washington, D.C.. Kumioko ( talk) 02:00, 6 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_6&oldid=1123483856"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 5 June 7 >

June 6

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Old cat, never expanded. WWGB ( talk) 23:38, 6 June 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.

Category:Songs written in style of folk traditional 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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category, contains only one entry after many months. WWGB ( talk) 23:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Whole can of worms with this cat. Or as Big Bill Broonzy said, "Of course they are folk songs, I've never heard horses sing!" You should have nominated Category:Songs with disputed authorship at the same time, which is another can of worms. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:46, 10 June 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.

Category:Songs with lyrics by Robert Burns

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 and populate. The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category, contains only one entry after many months. WWGB ( talk) 23:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Three of the articles specifically say that Burns wrote words to existing melodies, I suspect the other 3 were as well. That's lyrics not poems in my book. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:05, 12 June 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.

Category:Development projects in the United Arab Emirates

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 Fayenatic london. The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We do not have an article on a development project so it is unclear what the scope is. Construction project exists as a redirect, so it is a possible choice and it is populated. However, it may well be better to simply rename to Category:Buildings and structures under construction in the United Arab Emirates, as a part of Category:Buildings and structures under construction by country, which is what many of these are. There seems to be a lot of overlap between these categories and using only one would improve navigation. The possible exception would be if we wanted to remove the major proposed projected projects where no construction has started. In that case we could simply use the existing Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United Arab Emirates. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:45, 6 June 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.

Category:Early Islam era poets

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/merge to Category:Poets of the early Islamic period. I will manually upmerge the contents of the women's category to Category:Islam and women and Category:Medieval women poets but not to Category:Arabic-language women poets as both articles already appear in Category:Pre-Islamic Arabian women poets, which is a subcategory. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current names are short but ungrammatical. Parent was renamed from Category:Arabic poets by era to Category:Arabic poets by period (see May 26 "Categories by era"). The surrounding categories are being speedily renamed but this does not meet the criteria. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:47, 6 June 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.

Category:Irish abortion providers

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: upmerge to both parents, without prejudice to recreation if the category can be better populated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: By its own scope definition, this category fails. For a category that supposedly caters for "notable physicians, clinics, and organizations whose primary practice is or was in the provision of abortion", it spectacularly fails to list even one article that meets the criteria. Only one nurse is listed. Secondary rationale is per WP:Small. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:49, 6 June 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.

Theatres of World War II

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. This is a split discussion, but the issue is merely one of grammar and punctuation rather than one of fact. There's an overall desire for some sort of change, with a slight preference for the lowercase "t" and the "of," so I'm going with that.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The current titles are awkward constructions and could be improved by changing to the Foo Theatre of World War II format. We should not, in my opinion, defer strictly to article naming since the relevant articles are not named consistently (for example, see European Theatre of World War II; Middle East Theatre of World War II; Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II; Pacific War; South-East Asian theatre of World War II; American Theater (1939–1945); and so on). I'm not sure whether the capitalization or spelling of 'Theater'/'theater' or 'Theatre'/'theatre' matters, since there is no clear standard within either the main or category namespaces (for instance, compare to Category:Campaigns and theatres of World War I). -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:44, 6 June 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.

Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category was nominated at WP:CFD/S to be renamed to Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk; however, I think that a more general discussion is needed in order to clearly define the scope of this category. I have notified the category creator, as well as WikiProjects Economics and Finance. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Coming from Wikiproject Finance, I oppose deletion, and I would like to know what the rationale is for a rename before commenting further. Thanks, Pine ✉ 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Category titles should be grammatically correct constructions, not outline-like: for example, we have Category:People of World War II instead of Category:World War II - People. At this time, I don't favor deletion or any particular name-change, since it's not clear to me what the scope of this category is (i.e., what articles/topics it should contain) and why it needs to be separate from Category:Systemic risk. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Category Creator Comment The category "Systemic Risk" is itself a relatively new area, however it clearly exists. The subcategory, Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets also clearly exists and stands alone. For just a "sliver" of what is available, in the behavioral & social area, see: http://www.argentumlux.org/documents/Lo__2011__-_Fear__Greed__and_the_Financial_Crisis-_A_Cognitive_Neurosciences_Perspective.pdf
    Much of the Systemic Risk category was born in the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and parallel regulation in the EU and Asia in response to the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis erased approximately 25% of accumulated wealth in the U.S. (and arguably, the world,) and has left a legacy of suboptimal growth that's likely to persist for a decade or longer.
    A new agency inside of the U.S. Treasury, Office of Financial Research, is specifically charged with guiding research in ways to reduce Systemic risk, see also Category:Systemic risk. Likewise the UK and Asia parallel regulatory organizations will also be conducting their own research on all aspects of systemic risk.
    A critical aspect of avoiding situations like the 2008 meltdown is the understanding of the behavioral and social facets that ultimately lead to panic, contagion and mistrust. When financial markets become chaotic they stop allocating capital into its highest and best use, based on a relatively rational perception of risk and return. The chaotic episodes extract a large cost, especially since in the wake of chaos it takes considerable time to "become calm" once more, and for more rational investor behavior to resume.
    I created Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets to be a child classification (Narrower Term) of the parent (Broader Term) general category Systemic risk, which I also created. I note that both areas are indeed rapidly evolving.
    Academic work in the behavioral and social aspects of individual investing (vs. being oriented to the systemic risk aspects) is however extremely well established. How those aspects apply to limiting system wide risk (systemic risk) is fairly new. In the context of individual investing it's often termed Behavioral economics or Behavioral finance.
    To the best of my knowledge the Library of Congress Subject Headings have stumbled around in the entire Behavioral economics / Behavioral finance headings areas. It my strong belief that this area, contained in the broader context of systemic risk, is sufficiently new and emerging. It therefore greatly benefits from a rather "loose" Folksonomy approach.
    In taking a first shot at authoring Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets I was frankly amazed at the article coverage in WikiPedia that appear to be 1. extremely well established subjects contained in themselves and 2. have direct importance and clear relevance to the examination of the Behavioral & Social aspects of Systemic Risk. As a "body of knowledge" WikiPedia has a great deal of content that systemic risk investigators, such as OFR staff, academics and international regulators, it can actually enable many people to "go to school on" and draw from them.
    The approach taken at the Office of Financial Research is initially likely to be rather traditional, strict academic. The study of panic and contagion however will be greatly enhanced by considering in considerable depth the specific behavioral and social aspects. [Again see the above referenced paper by Dr. Lo of MIT. BTW Lo was named one the top 100 influential people in the world by Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2111975_2111976_2112160,00.html]]. The probe into Systemic Risk in all its facets is therefore best informed by the Wisdom of the crowd (with WikiPedia a clear testament to the benefit of that approach) via its classic Folksonomy approach. Rick ( talk) 22:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Further Comment - Category Creator Comment Above explains what belongs in Systemic Risk and its sub category Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets. Just wanted to further explain the rational. Classical economics more or less assumes rational behavior. Behavioral economics / Behavioral finance attempts to model actual human behavior.
    Here is a more "folksy" yet informed reason. Economics is steeped in econometrics, which is largely reliant on math and statistics. Systemic Risk on first pass appears to be really just a sub segment of Economics. However, when you look at chaos, contagion and trust these issues are clearly relevant as disciplines all in themselves and not necessarily derived from math and statistics (at least in the first order). They essentially stand alone.
    Is Psychological warfare a legitimate child element of the broader area Warfare?
    Note - I claim no expertise on what is correct vs. incorrect wikipedia grammar construction here. However I will point out that what is standing now has demonstrable value and utility just as it is. I also note that having a pink box emblazoned upon the top of the page with "This category is being considered for deletion." as it first line brings all forward momentum in this area to a halt.
    If its just a grammatical issue here, where the use of a dash is found to be objectionable, I have no problem with the title of the page being changed to whatever is deemed superior. I'd hope the system would update the substantial number of linked pages? Rick ( talk) 02:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for your detailed response. I think I now have a better understanding of the category's scope, though I'm uncertain whether categorization or a new article would be the best way to capture and/or present this information. In response to your implicit question: the purpose of my nomination was to request discussion, not necessarily deletion, but I was unable to modify the wording of the deletion notice (the pink box). Best, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm not an expert in the area, but at minimum, it seems to me that this should be renamed to Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk. However, just from my initial purusal of the category and an attempt to understand in in the context of some of the articles in it, it seems to me that categorizing much of what is categorized here is a case of giving undue weight to this one particular topic. (In Wikipedia-ese, it doesn't really seem to be "defining" for a lot of the topics that are in the category.) For that reason, deletion might be a good idea and instead a sourced article might be the best way to start this topic off in Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Response I have no objection to a title change to Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk. Am opposed to total deletion as the topic has demonstrated existence by outside published articles in well refereed journals. Am totally open to exactly what articles are listed in the category page, and am eagerly looking forward to additional worldwide participation by experts in that specific area. Would argue that broader coverage would help inform current research spending. Any topic affecting 25% of the worlds wealth (the estimate of what was lost due to systemic risk problems starting in 2008) strikes me as very important. One could argue that the Behavioral and Social facets of the worldwide market crash (and other market aberrations), and the subsequent recovery process is a pinnacle topic for researchers, lawmakers and agency rule writers to forthrightly address. Rick ( talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk for the purposes of formatting.. ampersands are awful! The category creator seems to have thoroughly researched the field in question, and I believe we should give the creator the benefit of the doubt to prove the worth of this category. This topic is really out of my field of expertise, so I would like to hear some additional "expert" voices on the existence or non-existence of this topic. CaseyPenk ( talk) 07:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Response Want to repeat, have no problem changing the title. I too would welcome additional qualified expertise here. Experts are out there, but not in great numbers. And they are not wikipedia heavy posters. They are exceptionally busy doing research and crafting effective regulation. Andrew Lo at MIT is a great start. I'm positive this topic is under ample research in UK and Euro regulatory area. Rick ( talk) 06:55, 23 June 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.

Category:Hispanic and Latino American female pornographic film actors

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: upmerge to Category:American female pornographic film actors and Category:Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorisation. No doubt there probably is such a thing as 'Latina pornography', but this strikes me as an unnecessary triple intersection of occupation+gender+ethnicity. The contents can be upmerged to the parent categories. Robofish ( talk) 12:08, 6 June 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.

English football clubs by county

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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
List of 40 categories
(This list includes all of the sub-cats of Category:Football clubs in England by county, except for two which already use the proposed new format: Category:Football clubs in London‎ and Category:Football clubs in Bristol‎)
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to the match the "Foo in/of countyname" convention of most other subcats of Category:Categories by county of England (see e.g. Category:Education in England by county, Category:Civil parishes in England by county, Category:History of England by county, Category:Schools in England by county, Category:Sports venues in England by county).
The new format is also easier to read, because e.g. "Surrey football clubs" is too easily misread as "Surrey Football Club". Putting the territorial name first works a little better when an adjectival form is used, as with "English football clubs" or "Spanish football clubs", but most English counties do not have a widely-used adjectival form. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
WikiProject Football/England task force has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:51, 6 June 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.

Category:Category:Speakers of state legislatures in the United States

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: speedy delete ( criterion G6: technical deletion, including "pages unambiguously created in error". -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No need for redirects from names of Category:Category: types עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:59, 6 June 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.

Category:Fictional speakers of Klingon

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: Listify and delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No other languages, real or fictional, has a similar category - the other categories listed here refer to Speaker (politics), not to speakers of specific languages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 6 June 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.

Adding hyphens to compound adjectives

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: speedy rename ( criterion C2.A) since the objection was withdrawn and 48 hours have passed. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 06:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some opposed speedies. These are essentially grammar clean-ups. The term "XXXX period" is not hyphenated when it is a noun. But when it is an adjective, it is a compound adjective and hence is hyphenated. Thus: " Edo period" (noun); but "Edo-period works" (adjective, with "works" being the noun). The opposing editor pointed out that the articles do not hyphenate, which is true, and that is because the terms are nouns in that format. But in these category names they are compound adjectives. This is covered by the MOS at MOS:HYPHEN. (Three of the nominations also propose changing from "in" to "of" for consistency.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply
copy of speedy nomination
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:Wikipedia requested photographs in District of Columbia

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 Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in District of Columbia into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Washington, D.C., and merge Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of District of Columbia into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of Washington, D.C.. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Currently there are multiple redundant categories for photographs in Washington, D.C. I recommend combining Categories for:

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in District of Columbia with Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Washington, D.C. as well as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of District of Columbia with Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of Washington, D.C.. Kumioko ( talk) 02:00, 6 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_6&oldid=1123483856"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE