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: I stumbled across this poorly named category, which was being used by three completely unrelated templates to track errors. It is standard practice (in 2016, at least) to create one or more error-tracking categories for each template. I have changed all three templates to use their own dedicated tracking categories. I view this nominated category as an attractive nuisance; its name is too generic to be effective at conveying what is supposed to be in the category.
Pinging David Levy, the creator of this category back in 2008. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2016 (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.
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:LGBT American people of Cambodian descent[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 as nominated and to appropriate "American people of FOOian descent" categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per past CFD discussions and longstanding consensus of WP:LGBT, LGBT people are not subcategorized by individual country that their ancestors may happen to be from, but only by the general state of being African American or Asian American or Native American. While the latter is an appropriately WP:DEFINING point of categorization, it is not a defining characteristic to intersect LGBTness with the individual country that a person's ancestors happen to have come from. American LGBT culture does not, for example, treat people of Japanese descent differently than it treats people of Chinese or Cambodian descent (what you see in some people's Grindr profiles is "no Asians", not "some Asians depending which country"), and there's no major variation from one ethnicity to another in how widely LGBTness is or isn't accepted by their respective hyphenated-American cultural communities. So individual ethnic background simply is not a helpful or defining basis on which to subcategorize LGBT people. And with just 103 articles total among all of these categories combined, the parent category is not large enough to require this on WP:CATDIFFUSE grounds — it's a hindrance, not an aid, to navigating the category. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge Seems excessive and certainly agree with the rationale, but I thought extensive categories were to ensure granular pattern matching for searches, the more accurate, wider variation the better? Scope creep (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; categorizing people by nationality/sexuality/"descent" is OCAT; descent is a rather worthless characteristic as we have seen racial/ethnic identity is fluid or hidden, borders move, ethnicities change or merge or split, and for those whose descent is other than on the purely female side, remains purely speculative about fatherhood. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge per Peterkingiron. I also agree on Carlos' comments but realize we can't start deleting just randomly in the middle of the descent tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2016 (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.
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 result of the discussion was:delete per creator request. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (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.
The result of the discussion was:rename, as no confusion seems likely. All the items on the disambig page which include the first word "The" are currently within this category, except for Rush's song which is based on two of the franchise's episodes – so it would not be wrong to add it anyway. – FayenaticLondon 20:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match topic article title. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 07:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Twilight Zone, the name is ambiguous, which is OK for an article but not for a category. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per main article The Twilight Zone. I don't think any confusion is likely, given the limited number of meanings of "The Twilight Zone". It's an overwhelming primary topic for the name that includes the "The". Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:58, 29 September 2016 (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[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:no consensus. Obviously this result is without prejudice to a future proposal to rename or otherwise change the category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, while this category is meant to be a subcategory of Category:Microeconomics it mainly attracts a lot of non-microeconomic content, due to its ambiguous name. The category name is based on the JEL classification codes in economics but this context is probably unknown to most Wikipedians. In fact, within this entire category, only one grandchild Category:Decision theory is more or less about microeconomics (it's actually an interdisciplinary topic), so we may recategorize this one to Category:Microeconomics directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale is self-contradictory. As stated, it's an interdisciplinary field, though primarily located in microeconomics. So, what is the problem if people include articles that aren't economic? And, while I know that lots of Wikipedians disdain expertise, I can't forebear pointing out that I am one of the leading international researchers in this field as noted in John Quiggin. I'd really appreciate it if it it was left alone.JQ (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No you are twisting my words. I was saying that "decision theory" is an interdisciplinary field (shared with psychology and statistics). "Information, knowledge and uncertainty" isn't a field at all, it's just something on the list of the JEL classification codes and it's a highly ambiguous title. If you want to keep it, you'd better point out what should be in this category and why (instead of the current incoherent content), just a WP:ILIKEIT is not good enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments by John Quiggin. Interdisciplinary fields by their very nature include elements outside of pure economics. Dimadick (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This title is incredibly vague for non-economists and, as is often the case, the the JEL high level groupings are not intuitive for a reader of Wikipedia. In contrast, tighter well named topics like Category:Economics of uncertainty are useful for navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be a JEL classification code, but trying to make WP editors adhere to it would be difficult. Perhaps a different approach is called for. Scope creep (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories like this mislead the vast majority of editors who do not appreciate the background.Rathfelder (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Information, knowledge, and uncertainty in economics. If this category is specifically to be about the topic in economics, then the current name is too ambiguous for a general-purpose encyclopedia. If kept under the current name, I'd also expect to see these concepts covered in this category from the point of view of epistemology, probabilistic reasoning, information retrieval, etc. (But in that case, why not simply name it Category:Uncertainty?) —Ruud 10:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If kept I agree on the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2016 (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:Recipients of the National Medal (Australia)[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.
Nominator's rationale: Yet another medal awarded purely for long service to all who meet the eligibility criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An automatic award issued after 25, 35 and 45 years of services in the military or as an emergency responder doesn't sound defining, especially since the members of this category would already be in the relevant occupation category. Fails WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:OCAWARD. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Likely to be too common to be worth having a category for. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2016 (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:Recipients of the Insignia for the Military Wounded[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.
Nominator's rationale: Just a wound badge awarded to any serviceman unlucky enough to be wounded. No achievement required on their part. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dying in war might be defining but it's not clear to me that getting injured is or is all that unique. WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OCAWARD. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Likely to be too common to make a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2016 (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: Yet another campaign medal awarded to any who met the qualifying criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Likely to be too common to make a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2016 (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:Recipients of Australian campaign medals[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.
Nominator's rationale: We do not have categories for campaign medals. They're not defining or awarded for any special merit. They're just awarded for being there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Favor Deletion/But Keep & Containerize if the East Timor Subcategory is Kept Campaign medals fail both WP:OCAWARD and WP:PERFCAT because career soldiers would accrue many of them which leads to category clutter on the biography articles. (However this is the parent category of the East Timor medal below and, if that subcategory is kept, this would be a valid parent.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Likely to be too common to make a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2016 (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:Recipients of the International Force East Timor Medal[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.
Nominator's rationale: Just a campaign medal awarded for being there. Not defining in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Campaign medals fail both WP:OCAWARD and WP:PERFCAT because career soldiers would accrue many of them which leads to category clutter on the biography articles. Not defining and the recipients would already be in the appropriate military personnel category. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete -- This is no different from service in East Timor, but presumably only part of the army was deployed there. That might mean that service there was worth categorising. Possibly rename and repurpose. Campaign medals (and stars) come up with the pay. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2016 (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:Recipients of the Reserve Force Decoration[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.
Nominator's rationale: Yet another medal awarded simply for long service, not for any merit. We have deleted many similar categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to WP:OCAWARD, it seems like WP:ARBITRARYCAT to include someone who hit 15 years of service but exclude someone at 14 1/2.RevelationDirect (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Likely to be too common to make a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2016 (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: Just a device worn on a service medal to indicate particularly long service. Not awarded for any special merit, just for time served. We have deleted many similar categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to WP:OCAWARD, it seems like WP:ARBITRARYCAT to include someone who hit 15 years of service but exclude someone at 14 1/2. Also, this category seems to group a variety of awards together, none of which have the "Federation Star" name. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Federation Star would appear to be a device worn on the ribbons of the listed medals to indicate forty years' service. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Likely to be too common to make a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2016 (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:Recipients of the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal[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.
Nominator's rationale: Just a service medal awarded for volunteering for active service in the Second World War. Not defining in any way. We have deleted many similar categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voluntarily enlisting for World War II hardly seems defining, and these biography articles would already be in the Canadian military personnel category tree. WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OCAWARD. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Likely to be too common to make a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2016 (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.
