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: unclear inclusion criterion; all standards are arguably for reference; seems just a category for similarly named standards.
fgnievinski (
talk)
22:07, 2 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:Period television series
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.
If I understand correctly, historical television series includes non-fiction, while period television series does not, as
Period television series redirects to
Historical drama. Hence "historical" is broader than "period". Besides a historical television series does not have to be about a period, it can also be about a country across periods.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle and
Carlossuarez46:Historical drama was just moved a few days ago from
Historical period drama (since 2014), and was orginally named
Period piece (since 2005) created by trained historian with a film degree. It is still in
Category:Period pieces. This was done without discussion (other than a non-discussed post on the Talk) by a single user. That change was made with no citations. In the US film and theater industry, they are called "period dramas" or "period pieces" (for an highly influential example, see 25 Best Period Dramas to Watch For an Escape).
In the world of Hollywood, a period piece specifically refers to a film, TV series, or miniseries that is set during an earlier time. Period pieces often have high budgets and involve complex shoots, but the extra effort ensures that the audience is transported into a past era.
Only actual non-fiction history is called "historical". It is a subset of (child of) all period pieces, because a period piece can include fiction. I'd thought that maybe there was an English-language issue, but I'm finding the same terms in Britain. The primary ghit for "Historical drama" is wikipedia, followed by pages of ghits for "period drama". William Allen Simpson (
talk)
23:52, 26 February 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:Albums produced by Warren "Oak" Felder
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:Monument types
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:Hypothetical nuclei
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep.
WP:SMALLCAT relates only to small categories with no potential for growth. The potential for growth exists, as theorists proposed a lot of models of nuclei that are not observed yet but intensively discussed. See, for example, "various hypotheses of existence of stable superheavy nuclei and nuclearites glued by pion condensate [8-12], sigma condensate [13], either by strange quarks [14-18]" (
arXiv:
1901.05930), tetrahedral nuclei (
arXiv:
nucl-th/0610097), η-mesic nuclei (
arXiv:
nucl-ex/0011005), different hypernuclei and antihypernuclei (
arXiv:
1602.02173), superdense nuclei (A.B.Migdal. Theory of Finite Fermi Systems and Applications to Atomic Nuclei. ISBN:0470602457 ). Nuclei of hypothetical superheavy elements should be a subcategory, and
Category:Hypothetical composite particles has to be a containing category, because many of such the particles (glueball, heptaquark etc.) are not nuclei. --
V1adis1av (
talk)
15:39, 3 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:Sigma receptor agonists
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:Northwest Christian University
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.
Rename Parent/Procedural Oppose Alumni for Now Rename the main category, as nominated. In a future nom where the alumni category is tagged, I would favor renaming that as well while leaving a redirect (since bios will list graduating from the old name indefinitely). -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
09:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename (and also the alumni category). The WP convention is that alumni of renamed or merged institutions are deemed to have attended the present one. We settled this many years ago for (I think) a drama college in London that merged with another.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:50, 4 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:Businesspeople who committed suicide
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:Non-larid gulls
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: All gulls are
Larids, not all gulls are Larus. This category seems to have been made when most gull species were in the large genus
Larus. The taxonomy has changed since then, so there are more species that could go in this category. The name of this was wrong from the start though.
Iloveparrots (
talk)
13:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, there is no reason for this category to exist in the first place. "Gulls that are not in a particular genus" is not a natural or interesting category that we should use.
Somatochlora (
talk)
13:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Gulls are monophyletic, the word does not refer to terns etc. There are some discrepancies between the relevant wikipedia articles but regardless of how they are classified, gulls are still a natural group.
Somatochlora (
talk)
13:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
^Pons JM, Hassanin A, Crochet PA (December 2005). "Phylogenetic relationships within the Laridae (Charadriiformes: Aves) inferred from mitochondrial markers". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 37 (3): 686–99.
doi:
10.1016/j.ympev.2005.05.011.
PMID16054399.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Option A: merge to Category:Urdu-language writers After perusing the first several articles in the category, it appears that most are "Urdu-language writers", and the ones that are referred to as scholars are also listed in
Category:Linguists of Urdu. So it seems that Category:Urdu scholars is redundant and unnecessary.
Gjs238 (
talk)
04:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Neither -- Instead diffuse, i.e. empty manually into more appropriate categories (or perhaps better add additional categories such as
Category:Urdu-language novelists. When we are assured that all members have As a matter of information, Urdu (unusually) is a language that is not exactly an ethnicity, so that Urdu writers could only mean Urdu-language writers. It was the court language of the Mughal Emperors of India and is widely used by Muslims in South Asia, both in north and central India and Pakistan.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Option B I took a random sample and found mostly historic muslim scientists and preachers as well as some contemporary fiction writers. And I don't think such preachers are correctly identified/merged as a "writer"/author. (Furthermore I was astonished to find 22 subcategories for Category:Urdu-language writers. Well, so far away, I never ever had any encounter with Urdu language speakers.) --
Just N. (
talk)
14:10, 7 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:Fictional child abuse victims
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.
For one how do we decide if the child abuse is defining for a character? And what counts as abuse? We don't have a coresponding category for real people for example because it would be impossible to judge.
★Trekker (
talk)
11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I suspect that there is a lot of scope for novelists to explore this subject. It is difficult to have parallel categories for real people due to BLP issues, but no reason not to have one for fictional people. I would suggest that this should be limited to cases where the abuse is a major theme, rather than merely incidental.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. As an objection I just see that Category:Novels about child abuse doesn't cover films, comics and songs about child abuse. Are those as well existent? Otherwise... --
Just N. (
talk)
14:17, 7 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:Catch dog breeds
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.
Rename per nom. No idea why the creator named it 'Catch dog breeds' as the only subcat of hunting dogs with 'breeds'? Surprisingly 16 entries for cat: catch dogs. --
Just N. (
talk)
14:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment per COMMONNAME, while individual dogs or individual breeds can be called a terrier, a spaniel or a retriever, I've never seen a mastiff or a bulldog called a catch in the same fashion.
Place Clichy (
talk)
21:10, 11 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:Information, knowledge, and uncertainty
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Rationale makes no sense. As someone whose work is largely in Economics of Uncertainty, I don't know what you mean about "unrelated subfields". As regards "50 years old" in what sense is this a criticism?
JQ (
talk)
10:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
How much do you know about these topics? Uncertainty is central to both. Happy to explain further, but it would be good to have an idea how much background knowledge I can assume.
JQ (
talk)
07:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Responding similarly as I did to
Marcocapelle, it would be helpful to have an idea of your knowledge of this field. It's difficult to discuss purely in terms of category structure.
JQ (
talk)
07:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Starting with game theory, the central concept is that of Bayes-Nash equilibrium, discussed in
Bayesian game. Most of the other main equilibrium concepts in game theory are refinements of Bayes-Nash equilibrium. So, the connection to uncertainty is clear. Similarly, the central issue in portfolio theory is the risk-return trade-off, as discussed in
Capital Asset Pricing Model. Given the centrality of uncertainty here, the relevance of the category is again clear. If we can agree on that, I'm happy to move on to the broader category.
JQ (
talk)
08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
These are navigational categories meant to help readers find articles and, if there were a main article on the economics of uncertainty, I would absolutely be open to reconsidering. (Sounds like we're all implicitly accepting the parent category cannot be salvaged.)-
RevelationDirect (
talk)
09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The JEL system was carefully designed by experts in both economics and indexing. It would be much better to work within it, but I've run out of time, particularly if it's necessary to argue about it. So, I'll try to write the main article, and leave the categorization to get gradually messier, as it has been doing. Lets keep
Economics of uncertainty and you can dump the larger category
JQ (
talk)
11:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete "information, knowledge, and uncertainty" which is prima facie absurd, and even more absurd due to its extremely limited content and lack of a mainspace article. If this is a legitimate category, then we ought to create
Category:Apples, bananas and oranges with
Category:Apples,
Category:Bananas and
Category:Oranges as its only members. I will hold off on saying "delete" to the other one because it seems like @
John Quiggin: is about to make a point (or a main article), and I want to see it first (for me, you can assume I have a pretty good familiarity with game theory, optimization, and economic concepts). jp×g02:55, 23 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is being used for the promotion of a barely notable cryptocurrency, and multiple articles are being tagged with it (without any sources).
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
06:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
KEEP: This category is not being used for promotions, not sure why that is being asserted here. It's not a "barely notable" cryptocurrency,
Bitcoin Cash is actually a highly used cryptocurrency. It has
more transactional volume than Bitcoin, it is a top cryptocurrency, and has a
market cap of $11 Billion (as of this writing). All articles tagged are sourced correctly with RS, if you believe that to be false, then please cite examples of this otherwise. Thank you.
NeedAUsername44 (
talk)
23:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment, more articles have been added to the category since I looked yesterday but Bitcoin Cash is not a defining characteristic for these additional articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I removed some of these links to the category but
NeedAUsername44 reverted the edits to re-add to the articles. Note cryptocurrency articles are subject to
WP:GS/Crypto and if my recollection is correct earlier promotional edits on this Bitcoin Cash article were the impetus for the DS. The user above essentially confirms the rationale is promotional "it is the biggest cryptocurrency, etc". It would be better if we didnt have categories for the small cryptos, as we have enough issues with PROMO edits on the articles themselves. This
Category:Cryptocurrencies is sufficient for a merge if we cannot merge to
Category:Bitcoin (category creator seems to object to that).
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
17:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
You're misleading others. I did not say "it is the biggest cryptocurrency." Here is the actual statement, which can be seen above by anyone. "It's not a "barely notable" cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Cash is actually a highly used cryptocurrency. It has more transactional volume than Bitcoin, it is a top cryptocurrency, and has a market cap of $11 Billion (as of this writing)." Clearly what I am saying is that 1) it's notable, 2) it's actually used more than Bitcoin (see volume), and is a top cryptocurrency in the space. It's also not a "small crypto." I would like you to define "small crypto" then as you are using this phrase as some sort of deceiving characteristic of Bitcoin Cash, which it obviously by any metric is not "small."
NeedAUsername44 (
talk)
14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Disagreed. Bitcoin Cash does not fit within
WP:SMALLCAT. It has a huge potential for growth, and as outlined with facts linked to above, it has already surpassed that of Bitcoin in various areas such as network activity, adoption, and by no means it's a trivial cryptocurrency, as it has a $11 billion market capitalization. If anything, as
WP:SMALLCAT says, Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time.NeedAUsername44 (
talk)
14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
It does not matter what the market value is. The question is which additional wp articles will be written about this topic. If that remains unclear the realistic potential for growth argument does not count.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I totally agree. Clearly Bitcoin Cash has become a top cryptocurrency looking at it's stats as compared to others including Bitcoin, and if you look at the news there is lots of RS about it, so it is in my mind undoubtedly going to be more WP articles written on this topic. Whether that actually happens or not is unknown.
NeedAUsername44 (
talk)
14:15, 6 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
When high ranking foreign visitors met with representatives from Imperial Mexico, the Order of Guadalupe was given out as souvenir.
Queen Victoria,
Kamehameha V, and
Leopold I of Belgium are not remotely defined by this award. There are a few Mexican people in this category but all except 1 are members of the royal family-
1,
2,
3,
4-who are already somewhere under
Category:Mexican monarchy. (The 1 exception is President
Vicente Guerrero who is not defined by the award.) There isn't a main article so I shoehorned a collapsible list with all the category contents
right here in the
Mexican Imperial Orders article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:09, 2 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:Order of Saint John in Sweden
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: Per
WP:SMALLCAT, the spirit of
WP:C2F, one eponymous article
The
Order of Saint John in Sweden is a Swedish order that is automatically headed by the King of Sweden. The only things in this category is that main article and the current King of Sweden,
Carl XVI Gustaf, who is not defined by the award. (Unlike my other nomination, there are not recipients in this category nor are they listed within the article.) I don't foresee any growth potential here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:09, 2 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.
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: unclear inclusion criterion; all standards are arguably for reference; seems just a category for similarly named standards.
fgnievinski (
talk)
22:07, 2 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:Period television series
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.
If I understand correctly, historical television series includes non-fiction, while period television series does not, as
Period television series redirects to
Historical drama. Hence "historical" is broader than "period". Besides a historical television series does not have to be about a period, it can also be about a country across periods.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle and
Carlossuarez46:Historical drama was just moved a few days ago from
Historical period drama (since 2014), and was orginally named
Period piece (since 2005) created by trained historian with a film degree. It is still in
Category:Period pieces. This was done without discussion (other than a non-discussed post on the Talk) by a single user. That change was made with no citations. In the US film and theater industry, they are called "period dramas" or "period pieces" (for an highly influential example, see 25 Best Period Dramas to Watch For an Escape).
In the world of Hollywood, a period piece specifically refers to a film, TV series, or miniseries that is set during an earlier time. Period pieces often have high budgets and involve complex shoots, but the extra effort ensures that the audience is transported into a past era.
Only actual non-fiction history is called "historical". It is a subset of (child of) all period pieces, because a period piece can include fiction. I'd thought that maybe there was an English-language issue, but I'm finding the same terms in Britain. The primary ghit for "Historical drama" is wikipedia, followed by pages of ghits for "period drama". William Allen Simpson (
talk)
23:52, 26 February 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:Albums produced by Warren "Oak" Felder
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:Monument types
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:Hypothetical nuclei
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep.
WP:SMALLCAT relates only to small categories with no potential for growth. The potential for growth exists, as theorists proposed a lot of models of nuclei that are not observed yet but intensively discussed. See, for example, "various hypotheses of existence of stable superheavy nuclei and nuclearites glued by pion condensate [8-12], sigma condensate [13], either by strange quarks [14-18]" (
arXiv:
1901.05930), tetrahedral nuclei (
arXiv:
nucl-th/0610097), η-mesic nuclei (
arXiv:
nucl-ex/0011005), different hypernuclei and antihypernuclei (
arXiv:
1602.02173), superdense nuclei (A.B.Migdal. Theory of Finite Fermi Systems and Applications to Atomic Nuclei. ISBN:0470602457 ). Nuclei of hypothetical superheavy elements should be a subcategory, and
Category:Hypothetical composite particles has to be a containing category, because many of such the particles (glueball, heptaquark etc.) are not nuclei. --
V1adis1av (
talk)
15:39, 3 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:Sigma receptor agonists
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:Northwest Christian University
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.
Rename Parent/Procedural Oppose Alumni for Now Rename the main category, as nominated. In a future nom where the alumni category is tagged, I would favor renaming that as well while leaving a redirect (since bios will list graduating from the old name indefinitely). -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
09:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename (and also the alumni category). The WP convention is that alumni of renamed or merged institutions are deemed to have attended the present one. We settled this many years ago for (I think) a drama college in London that merged with another.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:50, 4 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:Businesspeople who committed suicide
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:Non-larid gulls
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: All gulls are
Larids, not all gulls are Larus. This category seems to have been made when most gull species were in the large genus
Larus. The taxonomy has changed since then, so there are more species that could go in this category. The name of this was wrong from the start though.
Iloveparrots (
talk)
13:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, there is no reason for this category to exist in the first place. "Gulls that are not in a particular genus" is not a natural or interesting category that we should use.
Somatochlora (
talk)
13:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Gulls are monophyletic, the word does not refer to terns etc. There are some discrepancies between the relevant wikipedia articles but regardless of how they are classified, gulls are still a natural group.
Somatochlora (
talk)
13:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
^Pons JM, Hassanin A, Crochet PA (December 2005). "Phylogenetic relationships within the Laridae (Charadriiformes: Aves) inferred from mitochondrial markers". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 37 (3): 686–99.
doi:
10.1016/j.ympev.2005.05.011.
PMID16054399.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Option A: merge to Category:Urdu-language writers After perusing the first several articles in the category, it appears that most are "Urdu-language writers", and the ones that are referred to as scholars are also listed in
Category:Linguists of Urdu. So it seems that Category:Urdu scholars is redundant and unnecessary.
Gjs238 (
talk)
04:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Neither -- Instead diffuse, i.e. empty manually into more appropriate categories (or perhaps better add additional categories such as
Category:Urdu-language novelists. When we are assured that all members have As a matter of information, Urdu (unusually) is a language that is not exactly an ethnicity, so that Urdu writers could only mean Urdu-language writers. It was the court language of the Mughal Emperors of India and is widely used by Muslims in South Asia, both in north and central India and Pakistan.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Option B I took a random sample and found mostly historic muslim scientists and preachers as well as some contemporary fiction writers. And I don't think such preachers are correctly identified/merged as a "writer"/author. (Furthermore I was astonished to find 22 subcategories for Category:Urdu-language writers. Well, so far away, I never ever had any encounter with Urdu language speakers.) --
Just N. (
talk)
14:10, 7 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:Fictional child abuse victims
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.
For one how do we decide if the child abuse is defining for a character? And what counts as abuse? We don't have a coresponding category for real people for example because it would be impossible to judge.
★Trekker (
talk)
11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I suspect that there is a lot of scope for novelists to explore this subject. It is difficult to have parallel categories for real people due to BLP issues, but no reason not to have one for fictional people. I would suggest that this should be limited to cases where the abuse is a major theme, rather than merely incidental.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. As an objection I just see that Category:Novels about child abuse doesn't cover films, comics and songs about child abuse. Are those as well existent? Otherwise... --
Just N. (
talk)
14:17, 7 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:Catch dog breeds
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.
Rename per nom. No idea why the creator named it 'Catch dog breeds' as the only subcat of hunting dogs with 'breeds'? Surprisingly 16 entries for cat: catch dogs. --
Just N. (
talk)
14:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment per COMMONNAME, while individual dogs or individual breeds can be called a terrier, a spaniel or a retriever, I've never seen a mastiff or a bulldog called a catch in the same fashion.
Place Clichy (
talk)
21:10, 11 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:Information, knowledge, and uncertainty
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Rationale makes no sense. As someone whose work is largely in Economics of Uncertainty, I don't know what you mean about "unrelated subfields". As regards "50 years old" in what sense is this a criticism?
JQ (
talk)
10:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
How much do you know about these topics? Uncertainty is central to both. Happy to explain further, but it would be good to have an idea how much background knowledge I can assume.
JQ (
talk)
07:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Responding similarly as I did to
Marcocapelle, it would be helpful to have an idea of your knowledge of this field. It's difficult to discuss purely in terms of category structure.
JQ (
talk)
07:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Starting with game theory, the central concept is that of Bayes-Nash equilibrium, discussed in
Bayesian game. Most of the other main equilibrium concepts in game theory are refinements of Bayes-Nash equilibrium. So, the connection to uncertainty is clear. Similarly, the central issue in portfolio theory is the risk-return trade-off, as discussed in
Capital Asset Pricing Model. Given the centrality of uncertainty here, the relevance of the category is again clear. If we can agree on that, I'm happy to move on to the broader category.
JQ (
talk)
08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
These are navigational categories meant to help readers find articles and, if there were a main article on the economics of uncertainty, I would absolutely be open to reconsidering. (Sounds like we're all implicitly accepting the parent category cannot be salvaged.)-
RevelationDirect (
talk)
09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The JEL system was carefully designed by experts in both economics and indexing. It would be much better to work within it, but I've run out of time, particularly if it's necessary to argue about it. So, I'll try to write the main article, and leave the categorization to get gradually messier, as it has been doing. Lets keep
Economics of uncertainty and you can dump the larger category
JQ (
talk)
11:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete "information, knowledge, and uncertainty" which is prima facie absurd, and even more absurd due to its extremely limited content and lack of a mainspace article. If this is a legitimate category, then we ought to create
Category:Apples, bananas and oranges with
Category:Apples,
Category:Bananas and
Category:Oranges as its only members. I will hold off on saying "delete" to the other one because it seems like @
John Quiggin: is about to make a point (or a main article), and I want to see it first (for me, you can assume I have a pretty good familiarity with game theory, optimization, and economic concepts). jp×g02:55, 23 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is being used for the promotion of a barely notable cryptocurrency, and multiple articles are being tagged with it (without any sources).
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
06:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
KEEP: This category is not being used for promotions, not sure why that is being asserted here. It's not a "barely notable" cryptocurrency,
Bitcoin Cash is actually a highly used cryptocurrency. It has
more transactional volume than Bitcoin, it is a top cryptocurrency, and has a
market cap of $11 Billion (as of this writing). All articles tagged are sourced correctly with RS, if you believe that to be false, then please cite examples of this otherwise. Thank you.
NeedAUsername44 (
talk)
23:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment, more articles have been added to the category since I looked yesterday but Bitcoin Cash is not a defining characteristic for these additional articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I removed some of these links to the category but
NeedAUsername44 reverted the edits to re-add to the articles. Note cryptocurrency articles are subject to
WP:GS/Crypto and if my recollection is correct earlier promotional edits on this Bitcoin Cash article were the impetus for the DS. The user above essentially confirms the rationale is promotional "it is the biggest cryptocurrency, etc". It would be better if we didnt have categories for the small cryptos, as we have enough issues with PROMO edits on the articles themselves. This
Category:Cryptocurrencies is sufficient for a merge if we cannot merge to
Category:Bitcoin (category creator seems to object to that).
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
17:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
You're misleading others. I did not say "it is the biggest cryptocurrency." Here is the actual statement, which can be seen above by anyone. "It's not a "barely notable" cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Cash is actually a highly used cryptocurrency. It has more transactional volume than Bitcoin, it is a top cryptocurrency, and has a market cap of $11 Billion (as of this writing)." Clearly what I am saying is that 1) it's notable, 2) it's actually used more than Bitcoin (see volume), and is a top cryptocurrency in the space. It's also not a "small crypto." I would like you to define "small crypto" then as you are using this phrase as some sort of deceiving characteristic of Bitcoin Cash, which it obviously by any metric is not "small."
NeedAUsername44 (
talk)
14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Disagreed. Bitcoin Cash does not fit within
WP:SMALLCAT. It has a huge potential for growth, and as outlined with facts linked to above, it has already surpassed that of Bitcoin in various areas such as network activity, adoption, and by no means it's a trivial cryptocurrency, as it has a $11 billion market capitalization. If anything, as
WP:SMALLCAT says, Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time.NeedAUsername44 (
talk)
14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
It does not matter what the market value is. The question is which additional wp articles will be written about this topic. If that remains unclear the realistic potential for growth argument does not count.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I totally agree. Clearly Bitcoin Cash has become a top cryptocurrency looking at it's stats as compared to others including Bitcoin, and if you look at the news there is lots of RS about it, so it is in my mind undoubtedly going to be more WP articles written on this topic. Whether that actually happens or not is unknown.
NeedAUsername44 (
talk)
14:15, 6 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
When high ranking foreign visitors met with representatives from Imperial Mexico, the Order of Guadalupe was given out as souvenir.
Queen Victoria,
Kamehameha V, and
Leopold I of Belgium are not remotely defined by this award. There are a few Mexican people in this category but all except 1 are members of the royal family-
1,
2,
3,
4-who are already somewhere under
Category:Mexican monarchy. (The 1 exception is President
Vicente Guerrero who is not defined by the award.) There isn't a main article so I shoehorned a collapsible list with all the category contents
right here in the
Mexican Imperial Orders article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:09, 2 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:Order of Saint John in Sweden
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: Per
WP:SMALLCAT, the spirit of
WP:C2F, one eponymous article
The
Order of Saint John in Sweden is a Swedish order that is automatically headed by the King of Sweden. The only things in this category is that main article and the current King of Sweden,
Carl XVI Gustaf, who is not defined by the award. (Unlike my other nomination, there are not recipients in this category nor are they listed within the article.) I don't foresee any growth potential here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:09, 2 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.