Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 5 June 7 >

June 6[edit]

Category:Pages with links to audio[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 London 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further thought, renaming the parent "by period" carries little or no weight as to whether the categories for specific date ranges should be named "era" or "period". However, in this case, "early Islamic period" has more hits in Google books than "early Islamic era" (44k cf 17k). Strangely, the relative popularity of these terms is strongly reversed on a general Google search (72k cf 939k), but the terms used in books should carry more weight. – Fayenatic London 08:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:7th-century poets. These categories are too small to really exist on their own. All the people are otherwise associated with Islam. The fact that up until recently the category included at least one poet who died decades before the founding of Islam shows the category is problematic at best. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why just pick that parent, and take them out of the hierarchy of Category:Arabic-language poets? I would have thought that the early Islamic period would be especially significant for Arabic poetry, and therefore these should be kept even if there are just 4 articles. – Fayenatic London 08:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I guess that makes sense. By the way are Arabic-language poets under the same rules as Arabic-language writers, where we do not so classify if that is their nationality? I do not think it would apply here, but it would limit the potential size of the category overall. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah: you mean that Arabic-language writers should only be categorised as such if they are from a country where Arabic is not the first language. So e.g. Category:English-language poets has "see also" links to American poets and English poets, but those are not its sub-cats; the individual poets are listed in List of English-language poets rather than categorised. Well, if that were to be applied to other languages, there would be all the more reason to categorise the members of this one as Arabian. However, at present Category:Arabic poets by nationality does have sub-cats for the counties of the Arab world, and I am inclined to think that it is useful to keep it so. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Category:Poets of the early Islamic period would be better. I do not think the language has to be specified unless there are a variety of languages used within this "movement". It is worth stating it with respect to "the early Islamic period" as this is less arbitrary then for example "the 7th-century". Poetry is apart of culture, and this is a notable period and "movement" in cultural history Brad7777 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The category specifies a period rather than a movement, so either Arabic or Arabian is required in the category name. – Fayenatic London
    • Question May i ask why the language distinction? Brad7777 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you asking, why treat writers of foreign languages differently from writers of English? – Fayenatic London 16:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm asking why the language matters from the context of the cultural period. I believe it makes no notable differences in the poetry. I agree that a "poet by language" distinction is warranted, and that "poet by cultural period" distinction is also warranted, but not a "poet by language by cultural period" distinction. IMHO its adding depth which isn't needed. And seems like an arbitrary intersection for original research. I meant no offense, which your reaction implies. Brad7777 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant no offence either, and took no offence; I simply wasn't sure what you were asking. This seems to link in with Jc37's question on 3 July which I only just answered, at the end of this discussion. The category covers people within a certain location and time period; as they all spoke the same language, it seems valid to me to make it a sub-cat of Arabic language poets by period. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I see what you mean, it seems valid to me to add it to the Arabic poets by period, either as Category:Poets of the early Islamic period or Category:Arabic poets of the early Islamic period. I prefer the first because it is less misleading. The second implies more similar categories exist, although the second would make it clearer for those who find it in Arabic poets by period, who know little of the cultural period. I would stick with the name that is best sourced (the most common phrase) but include it in Arabic poets by period in either case. Brad7777 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think the distinction between male and female is necessary in this case, as there are not enough articles in this category to split them. Brad7777 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I would not be upset about upmerging the Women category, provided that the articles ('Asma' bint Marwan, Al-Khansa) are upmerged to all four parents. I see that Category:Arabic-language women poets has other sub-categories which are likewise small, so if this happens I will nominate each of them for upmerging to both parents; the same applies to Category:Medieval women poets. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the parents are Category:Arabic poets by period and Category:Arabic-language women poets, why are you suggesting using "arabian"? Are you intending to propose renaming several other categories in the tree? Also, are you intending to rename Category:Pre-Islamic Arabian poets and subcats to match the "period" format? - jc37 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See response to Johnpacklambert above re "Arabian". Moreover, these poets are all Arabian, so there is no merit in broadening out the name to "Arabic language". No, I am not intending to rename any others; this is the last; the others have been renamed at WP:CFDS already. The earliest period was Category:Pre-Islamic era poets and now matches its parent Category:Pre-Islamic Arabia; I did not see any merit in going for consistency in naming these and their sibling categories, as that would require longer names. This nomination is mainly to achieve grammatically better names. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me ask this a different way. Why are we mixing "people by ethinicity" with "people by written language"? Shouldn't we rename these to match in one way or other? Either Arabic to denote written language or Arabian to denote ethnicity? And are we categorising based upon adjectivising the poets or their writings (poetry)? - jc37 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Responding to Brad7777's comments above, I have no objection to shortening the new name to Category:Poets of the early Islamic period. It is clear enough that that name only covers the locations where Islam was established during that time, so it is not essential to refer to nationality/ethnicity or language in the category name. – Fayenatic London 11:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification/Support a rename of Category:Early Islam era poets to Category:Poets of the early Islamic period, with Category:Early Islam era women poets upmerged into its appropriate categories. Per discussion with nom. Brad7777 (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename both to Category:Poets of the early Islamic period per the discussions above. - jc37 19:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename per Brad7777 and Jc37. (Supporting the revised proposal as nominator.) We have a consensus. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 17 July 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[edit]

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 subject of the article was clearly a notable Irish abortion provider, to go by "famously" in Abortion in the Republic of Ireland#History. However, if there are no others, upmerge to both parents Category:Abortion providers and Category:Abortion in Ireland. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate - surely there are more than one? I would also draw attention to Category:German abortion providers, which similarly has one article and should similarly be expanded, in my view. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is actually not a notable thing in most cases. The fact that at least up until very recently abortion was illegal in Ireland makes this an even less present category. Being an abortion provider is not generally the path to notability for doctors. That comes from being involved in cutting edge research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless this is evidently a reason for notability in this case, so why delete rather than upmerge? – Fayenatic London 08:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will support upmerge to the abortion providers cat, but on the Irish front this should be upmerged to a people category. I am not going to support merging a people cat into a non-people cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge but we should be splitting it between the Republic and Northern Ireland. The only article is about an illegal backstreet abortionist. There is a very good reason why the category cannot be populated: I believe that abortion is still illegal in the Republic; it may be in Northern Ireland too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that all the subcats under Category:Abortion providers are badly named. Just to use this case, for example: "Irish" is not clear whether it is meant to mean of Irish descent, or a resident of Ireland. (And that doesn't even get into Ireland/Northern Ireland potential issues.) No opinion on the rest of the discussion above. - jc37 20:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment names like Irish, English, German etc. are always meant as nationality tags, not ethnicity tags. This is the agreed upon way we use these terms in wikipedia. There is nothing ambiguous about them. This is as clear here as it is for writers, singers and acotrs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 14 July 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[edit]

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]
  • Oppose. None of the proposed titles remedies the supposed defect - that of awkward construction - as each is equally awkward. The current constructions have the advvantage of following train-of-thought navigation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One's mileage may vary, but 'Foo of Bar' is a natural order of expression, including in relation to World War II: people of World War II, battles of World War II, causes of World War II. The 'train-of-thought' format of the current titles is precisely why I characterized them as "awkward". -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Query in the Category:Battles and operations of World War II cat cited, there is a subcat called Category:World War II operations and battles of the Pacific Theatre. Does the proposer intend a comprehensive renaming of all WWII cats to conform with his convention? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, I have checked only the theatres, campaigns, and battles/operations trees within Category:World War II. For those, yes, though I'd like to note that I had no part in establishing the convention within Category:Battles by war. In the case of the Pacific Theatre category, I would suggest Category:Battles and operations of the Pacific Theatre of World War II (or, "... of the {{whatever name is chosen for Category:World War II Pacific Theatre, be it Category:Pacific theatre of World War II, Category:Pacific War, Category:Pacific Theatre (World War II) or something else}}). Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to the second option, i.e. "Foo theatre of World War II". This "foo of bar" format most clearly conveys the contents of the category. I think that "theatre" does not need capitalisation, but I won't oppose a rename to the capitalised form. --20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
  • Rename all to use "theatre" (lower case "t"). I did some searching. (I have to say that it's amazing how many Wikipedia articles I had to sift through in a google search to finally get some non-wikipedia results lol.) It seems that theatre is capitialised when the title of books or webpages, but otherwise is lower case. So for our purposes, I believe our MoS suggests lower case in these situations. Some links: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. Incidentally, this wiki was interesting - shame it's now closing. - jc37 22:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:World War II Pacific Theater or Category:Pacific Theater of World War II or Category:Pacific theater of World War II should probably use the American English "theater," because the two main combatants (USA and Japan) both use American English. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The two main combatants were the allied powers and the axis powers. And I would hesitate to suggest that Japan used American english at that time... - jc37 20:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I would add China, the United Kingdom and ANZAC to that list. China suffered 3–4 million military deaths and the British and Australians played a major role in several campaigns, including Burma, Malaya, New Guinea and Singapore. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, looks like I neglected to link allied powers : ) - jc37 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was responding to CaseyPenk, in support of your point that combat took place between two alliances consisting of multiple individual nations. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, shorted category names are better. Also those theatres which have a predominance of US involvement should probably be renamed to "theater" spelling. -- PBS (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed names are a mere three characters longer. Surely we should not base naming decisions on such a minor difference. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think Category:Theatre of World War II (European) would be more of an improvement grammatically. Brad7777 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be confused with parenthetical disambiguation of the type we usually use, where the title is a form or type of the object identified in parenthesis—e.g., Category:Georgia (country), where Georgia is a country. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: having "World War II" in front provides sort from "Search" window (upper right of screen) within other WWII-specific subcategories when "Category:World War II" is entered by the user. 64.134.28.132 (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a theoretical 'advantage' only, not a practical one. There are so many categories that begin with "World War II..." that it is extremely unlikely that typing "Category:World War II" will result in these categories appearing in the search list. Further, this is not a reliable method of searching for categories since there are hundreds of WWII-related categories that do not start with "World War II...". -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've updated the original proposal to reflect jc37's research regarding the need, or lack thereof, to capitalize 'theatre'. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 16 July 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[edit]

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 classicFolksonomy 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[edit]

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 London 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]
  • UpMerge to the 3 2 parents: Category:American female pornographic film actors; Category:Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors; Category:Hispanic and Latino American women. (Incidentally, it's a quad intersection: nationality as well : ) - jc37 12:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sextuple, if we consider Category:Actors by medium and Category:Films by genre: nationality (American), ethnicity (Hispanic and Latino), gender (female), occupation (actor), medium (film), and genre (pornographic). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rofl. That's a reminder to everyone to never try to match wits with BF. You'll often come to the match seemingly unarmed by comparison : ) - jc37 21:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, you flatter me. I just like dissection... here's me, with the blue gloves. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although our article about ethnic pornography does not directly mention it, I don't doubt that there is a niche for 'Latina porn'. However, it is worth noting that this is a category of pornographic film actresses by ethnicity and not by genre, meaning that the "unique cultural topic" exception of WP:CAT/GRS does not apply. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Black Falcon. Race and gender are both salient aspects of pornography. Furthermore, as the creator of the category, I would like to point out that Category:American female pornographic film actors is extremely bloated as it is and that I created the subcategory (into which many articles fall) partially as a means of diffusing it. Asarelah (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood my intention, and I blame myself for attempting to explain my perspective in only two sentences. My point was that while there probably is a 'Latina' genre of pornography, this category is not one of pornographic actresses within that genre but rather one of pornographic actresses by ethnicity/race. A Latina pornographic film actress is not necessarily one who participates in films belonging to the 'Latina porn' genre. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ethnicity/race is extremely relevant in this field of work. It doesn't matter if there is a 'genre' or if the actors/actresses 'participate in that genre', the fact is that this is something that is, whether we like it or not, defining. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge this six-way (hmm... that's suitably porn-themed) intersection to Category:American female pornographic film actors and Category:Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors all parents, per jc37 and my comments above. Ethnicity and race are "salient aspects of pornography"/"relevant in this field of work" only insofar as they actually affect the work (e.g., genre).
    Let us take the example of a hypothetical pornographic film actress of Hispanic/Latino descent whose ethnicity does not, either due to her choice or appearance, significantly influence her career. It is true and verifiable that she is of Hispanic/Latino descent and that she is an American pornographic film actress. However, since her ethnicity and her career are unrelated, it would be original synthesis to combine these facts and apply to her the label 'Hispanic and Latino American female pornographic film actor'.
    Even in those cases where a pornographic film actress' career is influenced by her Hispanic/Latino descent, descent is merely a proxy for something else, such as appearance or self-branding. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for keep Although not all these women market themselves as Hispanic/Latina, many of them do, and I don't see any other categories that they can be put in to show that. Furthermore, there other intersections of Latina women and occupations (such as Category:Hispanic and Latino American women in politics and Category:Hispanic and Latino American women in the arts, in which race isn't nearly as salient as it is in pornography.Asarelah (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the category is upmerged, one two of the merge targets would be Category:Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors and Category:Hispanic and Latino American women, so the connection to identity would not be lost. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for keep We've already got a Hispanic and Latino American women in television category, and in most cases race is irrelevant to their TV work. Same goes for the other Hispanic and Latino American women categories. Most of those women do not make their Latina identifies salient in their careers, and it just seems rather arbitrary to eliminate this category (and this category alone) on the basis that some of these women don't necessarily market themselves as Latina. Asarelah (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable specialty topic. Like it or not, there are industries built around these sub-classifications. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a question of dislike. What you say is true, but this category has nothing to do with participation or involvement in such an industry. It is purely an intersection of a nationality–gender–genre–medium–occupation category with an ethnicity–genre–medium–occupation category, much like could be accomplished using CatScan. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not upmerge to Category:Hispanic and Latino American women this is only to be a container category. It is not to have any articles at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think Lambert makes a good point here. Asarelah (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. I've revised my comments accordingly. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:American female pornographic film actors and Category:Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors per Black Falcon above. This is far too specific. Oculi (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as Oculi and Black Falcon. I am dubious as to having a dual category like "Hispanic and Latino American", but this is not the place to discuss that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So...do we have any consensus? Asarelah (talk) 00:29, 1 July 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[edit]

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]
  • Rename all per nom. Nothing to add here, the proposed names are obviously better. Robofish (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Football/England task force has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - This makes perfect sense. – PeeJay 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - per nom. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all County names make awkward adjective. Number 57 17:03, 8 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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  • Keep The nominator's first claim is false, as its parent category, "Fictional characters by status" contains the category "Fictional Esperantists" (which omits Herr Lodovico Settembrini of The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann). Klingon-speaking, like Esperanto-speaking, is an important element in the portrayal of the character, of course, which is why this category was preserved in a previous discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The category was preserved mainly because it wasn't del-tagged (according to the closing admin). – sgeureka t•c 10:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – one does not have to look very far to find several similar categories for real languages in Category:People by language. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you refer to fictional speakers of Esperanto, contained as a subcategory within "Speakers of International Auxiliary Languages". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I refer to (real) Welsh-speakers, Cornish-speakers etc. (The nom has done a search on 'speakers of'; speaking gets more but still misses 'francophone' etc.) Oculi (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add names to Klingon language, then delete. Granted, the Klingon language has a very special place among fictional languages. However, a significant portion of characters in this cat are Klingons (who'd guess they are also speakers of Klingon?), another portion doesn't even mention in their article that they are speakers of Klingon, meaning it's either irrelevant (I wouldn't go that far) or their belonging into this cat is unsourced and thereby questionable. (Before someone asks, this is also true for Category:Fictional Esperantists.) A list in the main Klingon language article could deal with that more appropriately, allow refs, and highlight the real-world influence of Klingon even more when other-franchise characters are shown to speak it. – sgeureka t•c 10:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Sgeureka said - (essentially, listify and delete). - jc37 11:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per Sgeureka. (The usual editorial processes can then decide whether the list is worth keeping). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pretty unnecessary, as it adds virtually nothing to these characters' articles to say they speak Klingon. I don't think 'fictional characters by language' is ever going to be a useful categorisation. Wouldn't object to a list in the article though. Robofish (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. The Klingon characters should never have been included. It's not a particularly notable ability for non-Klingon characters in Star Trek either. For the contemporary characters, it is an archetypal demonstration of geekiness, but even then it's not quite a defining characteristic in itself. Qapla'! – Fayenatic London 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable characteristic in characters. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what next Category:Fictional speakers of English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify non-Star Trek characters to Klingon language#Appearances in other media and delete. This category groups fictional characters by an in-universe characteristic that, except in the case of Klingons, is generally a minor element of the fictional persona. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:41, 18 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 London 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_6&oldid=1123483856"