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.
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
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 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 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. – FayenaticLondon20:35, 24 October 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: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 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]
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?) —Ruud10:34, 24 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)
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.
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]
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
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 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: 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]
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
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.
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
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.
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]
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
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]
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.
