Category:History of the Federal District of Mexico[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.
I've gone and done just that. As Mexico City is pretty much a state, it belongs in the state-level category trees. Raymie (t • c) 17:23, 20 April 2017 (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. – FayenaticLondon 09:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nomination; this change is reasonable based on the existing categories and articles. Of source, the subcategories of this category also must be renamed. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. Rename the subcategories per propoal format also. Should Category:Blagoevgrad Province be a member? Less than 1% of its population self identifies as "Macedonian". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2017 (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:delete. I will add a "see also" link to the sub-cat in the main article. – FayenaticLondon 09:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains an eponymous article and a subcategory. No need to merge, the article is sufficiently categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SJK (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only article for this category can easily be added to the "sub"-category. ToThAc (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2017 (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:delete. Thank you Czar and The1337gamer for checking the contents first. – FayenaticLondon 08:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following the precedent of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 3#Category:Nintendo 64 games by genre, "X console games by genre" is an overcategorization (overlapping, narrow scopes). We currently cat by "X console" and by "X genre games", and since many games have more than one genre and are released for more than one console, the consensus at WPVG is that the naming under discussion is overkill. The games should already be in the proper parent categories, though the articles should be checked before the cat is deleted. czar 17:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per previous CfD as trivial WP:CROSSCAT between genre and platform, which is pretty much arbitrary selection. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin question to @Czar:: as you say, in order to delete rather than merge, the articles should be checked first to see that they will remain within the hierarchies for genre and machine. Are you volunteering for this task? – FayenaticLondon 09:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london, I could, if there's no rush. I haven't used AWB in a while, unless there is a better/newer tool for the task. czar 01:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: We can use the usual CFD bot (Cydebot) to do the hard work of editing the pages (it automatically adds a link in the edit summary back to this page). What's needed is a manual review to be sure that the member pages are directly in the relevant hierarchies. I'd close this discussion and list the categories at WP:CFDWM; you could add a note there when you had reviewed the contents of one of the nominated categories, at which point I would promptly list it for automated deletion.
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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 08:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any difference between both notions. If there is one, I'd be fine with an appropriate brief description (or a link to a main article where the distinction is explained) on each category page. (In the latter case, Category:Monte Carlo methods should possibly be removed from one of both categories.) Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, it should be a reversed merge and I'm neutral on whether to merge at all. Stochastic algorithms is a subset of statistical algorithms, e.g. most clustering algorithms are statistical but aren't stochastic. In fact I think it would make more sense to merge Category:Stochastic algorithms and Category:Randomized algorithms. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: My main intent is that the categorization should be based on mathematical theory. I'm not sure whether your reply is based on it, or if it just reflects the current categorization. If the former applies, are you able to give brief definitions for the categories that allow an editor to select the most appropriate one for an article? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your question. Algorithms aren't based on theory, they are just ways of getting somewhere (where "somewhere" depends on context). The adjectives "statistical", "stochastic" and "random" are just descriptors of certain algorithms. The articles Statistics, Stochastic process and Randomness, respectively, provide background info and sources about how we may interpret these three adjectives. For this discussion it is important to note that not only inferential statistics but also descriptive statistics are part of statistics (the latter doesn't require any stochastic theory). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My last reply was phrased in a somewhat sloppy way - sorry. My intent is to merge those categories that cover synonymous notions, and to give brief discriminating descriptions for the remaining categories. I suspect Category:Statistical algorithms and Category:Stochastic algorithms are technical terms, so their meanings can't be derived from "statistics" and "stochastic" (in a similar way as the meaning of e.g. rational number can't be learned by reading rationality). I think an expert is needed to clarify this issue. Although I'm a mathematician and a computer scientist, I don't have sufficient particular knowledge about this field. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One challenge here is that stochastic algorithm means at least two different things. To a statistician, or someone who uses a lot of stats, a stochastic algorithm is an algorithm used in stochastic analysis, e.g., simulating a white noise process, solving an SDE, or pseudo-random number generation. To a computer scientist, a stochastic algorithm is an algorithm that is non-deterministic. Same adjective, two very different meanings. I think it would be reasonable to split the category and
An alternative would be to leave Category:Stochastic algorithms as a mixture of the two concepts and inherit from suitable statistics and CS parent categories. --Mark viking (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2017 (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.
