Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 13 August 15 >

August 14[edit]

Category:Roman Catholic Apostolic Prefectures[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 as nominated. ℯxplicit 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D'ish with main article Apostolic prefect, while also keeping WP:C2C into account, in equivalence with what happened to the final destination Category:Military ordinariates, Category:Missions sui iuris, and Category:Territorial prelatures. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2018 (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:Polish resistance fighters 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 to Category:Polish resistance members of World War II. ℯxplicit 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match other categories in Category:World War II resistance members ; Category:Czech resistance members, Category:Norwegian resistance members, etc. I wouldn't oppose Category:Polish resistance members of World War II if if it is necessary to differentiate from other Polish resistance movements. Catrìona (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2018 (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:Billionaires[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. ℯxplicit 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a bad faith nomination per WP:POINT given the below thread on Category:Ultra high-net-worth individuals, though I'm not sure what to say on deletion here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also in WP:POINT, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point.. assume good faith please.--Prisencolin (talk)
      • All nominated categories have to be tagged. Oculi (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Prisencolin, it's painfully obvious you nominated this out of spite following the CFD for your "Ultra high-net-worth individuals" category. Don't try to pretend otherwise. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well so what, if this category doesn't meet guidelines for inclusion, it shouldn't be here. How much do you want to bet most of the delete' votes on the other discussion are just based off of WP:IDONTLIKE, since none of the arguments really go beyond that.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per first reaction of Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think the nom is in bad faith, nor is it disruptive, which is the behavior WP:POINT is directed at. If indeed, every argument that applies to Category:Ultra high-net-worth individuals applies equally well to Category:Billionaires, there's no good reason not to treat them consistently.
That being said, I see one distinction between Category:Billionaires and Category:Ultra high-net-worth individuals, and that is that there is no significant objective component to applying the label "billionaire" to an individual. It's not blurry; either the individual's net worth is in excess of one billion dollars, or it is not. The categorization is inherent in the term itself. In contrast, although as I wrote below, there seems to be a $30M consensus around "ultra high-net-worth individuals", it's not universal and unlike "billionaire" is not a moving target.
I'm not expressing a delete or keep !vote, however, not having a firm opinion either way. TJRC (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2018 (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:Orthodox Christians in the German Resistance[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 two articles are already within both category trees Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians opposed to Nazi Germany and Category:German Resistance members. ℯxplicit 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in category, uncertain possibility of expansion. Orthodox Christianity is a small minority of all Germans. Upmerge to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians opposed to Nazi Germany and Category:German Resistance members Catrìona (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is no appropriate merge target. The siblings are Catholic and Protestant with a parent "by religion" which should be a container only category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not set in stone whether this parent category should exist at all. There was an organized Protestant opposition (see Bekennende Kirche) so the Protestant sibling category has a strong reason to exist. But as far as I know there was no organized Catholic opposition, even less an organized Eastern Orthodox opposition. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no need to merge, the both article are in appropriate categories already. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2018 (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:Americans who grew up in poverty[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. Timrollpickering 11:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not appropriate per WP:CATDD. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline in particular? Anyways we have Category:Billionaires, why can't we have a category on people with wealth, it balances things out.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I can't find a specific guideline, this seems like an inappropriate category because it is vague (what qualifies as poverty? by contemporary standards or modern standards?) and potentially huge and therefore meaningless (think about the vast number of people who grew up in poverty). I don't know if that means the category should be deleted or if it should be (or can be) narrowed in scope and better defined. I'm curious: are there similar categories for people of other nationalities? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, some biographical articles say that a particular person "grew up in poverty". That's how I initially managed to populate the category, by searching for this exact phrase.--Prisencolin (talk)
  • Delete not defining; biographers may say this - they may also say that the subject's parents were divorced, that he or she was the third child of seven, or other such tidbits none of which are defining and none of which would we categorize on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46: that's pretty reducto ad absurdum, certain traits about a person's childhood are clearly more important than others. For instance, socio-economic conditions "Poverty can impede children’s ability to learn and contribute to social, emotional, and behavioral problems" [1].--03:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - poverty is subjective. Oculi (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2018 (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:Ramapo Community College alumni[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ramapo Community College does not exist..Ramapo College in NJ does. Only one entry in this category anyway. Tinton5 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2018 (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 Order of the Cross of Liberty, Medal of Liberty 2nd Class[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 action required (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I combined nomination with different levels of the same award to yesterday's thread here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2018 (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 clasp to the Iron Cross, 1st class[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. ℯxplicit 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I may be wrong, but to me this seems a clear example of WP:OCAWARD. There are currently seven hundred pages in this category, which is just a list of people who won a low-level Axis military decoration in both world wars. Catrìona (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If that award is used as a criterion for notability then it is a defining characteristic. The clasp was awarded when there was a preexisting iron cross from WWI and the recipient was due to receive another in WWII as I understand the articles about the matter. 1st class is not low-level either. Agathoclea (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Agathoclea: the awarding of the Iron Cross in either war is not currently being used a criterion for notability for these bios. If they are on Wiki, it's because they are notable for something else. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Neutral on Duel Merge) This award is for those that earned both the WWI and WWII version of this award. We can't say that each award is notable enough for a category but winning both isn't. (We could have a conversation about whether we should dual merge each of these people into each award but I generally prefer fewer categories).RevelationDirect (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Is or isn't? Your sentence only makes sense to me if you meant: "but winning both is". Agathoclea (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My wording may have been poor but I meant to show an inconsistency. If this nomination passes, the WWI and WWII award categories would still exist and all of these articles could just be moved to both categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the Iron Cross article, 218,000 Iron Cross First Classes were awarded during WWI and about 300,000 in WWII. It's hard to see this as a defining characteristic if there were so many recipients. Catrìona (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to a follow up conversations about the two underlying awards. My concern here is more procedural. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per RevelationDirect. I expect Trump would be able to come down on both sides on the "is/isn't" query. Oculi (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:CATDEF as none of the recipients are notable for having this decoration. It was awarded to too many recipients to be worth a category and was a decorative device: "A holder of the 1914 Iron Cross could be awarded a second or higher grade of the 1939 Iron Cross. To permit the two medals to be worn together, a "1939 Clasp" would be worn on the original 1914 Iron Cross." K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it was far from a "decorative device". It signified that someone who had been awarded the Iron Cross in WWI had also been awarded it in WWII, and was equivalent to a second receipt of the same award. On both occasions for bravery or distinguished service. However, I fail to see how being awarded the Iron Cross in both wars was defining. It is a footnote to someone's military career. If they are on WP, it is for other reasons. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 17 August 2018 (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:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 28#Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics. ℯxplicit 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:I propose Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics and Category:Lists_of_Marvel_Comics be merged. --occono (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 03:29, 14 August 2018 (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:People associated with Junimea[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 to Category:Junimists. ℯxplicit 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:OCASSOC, making the association with Junimea more specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on It's quite debatable whether Junimea ever had a formal membership process: a Junimist was one who attended the sessions regularly. Inclusion in this category is done on the basis of RSes defining X and Y as Junimists. I'm not saying "members" doesn't work as well (maybe it does), I'm just asking !voters to consider this before deciding. Dahn (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas no, Marco. Very few of them wrote. Many were simply orators or lecturers, some were just attending and listening. From the beginning, Junimea was also a political party, meaning that the category includes people who were also active as Junimist politicians. Dahn (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would we still need a parent cat in that scenario? Also, some of the people who were attending are routinely categorized as Junimea people by outside sources which we follow. That is the nuance I feel you're omitting here. Dahn (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give some examples of this missing nuance? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One fairly known example would be Alexandru Odobescu -- the issue is bound to come up when the article on him is more developed. Odobescu was a writer who, in old age, attended Junimea and was published by the Junimists, but Z. Ornea for instance notes that he should not, cannot, be viewed as a Junimist writer. The fact of his attending is culturally and politically significant; it is not however a fact equivalent to his adopting the style or guidelines of Junimea. Likewise, Petru Verussi was neither a writer or a politician, he was a painter who attended Junimea, possibly the only one visual artist who integrated within the movement. There are also examples of other Junimists who were neither writers nor politicians -- I think this was the case of Lascăr Ciurea, who may not be significant enough to have his own article, but, in case he is deemed significant enough, would be so only as a Freemason who doubled Junimea by creating a Masonic Lodge from its core attendees.
WADR Marco, you also did not answer my previous: even if we split the cat into two, don't we also need a parent category? Would you rather have it under Category:Junimea people? Would that do? I mean, I can see your point about "associated with" being too loose, but let's see if we can come up with something that reflects the historical vagueness of that club. Dahn (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never suggested Ornea should be added anywhere (?), while Odobescu clearly was a "member" in your definition, though certainly not a "Junimea writer", so your claim that we should purge him is whimsical (though note; he's not in the category at the moment, because the article on him doesn't even mention his affiliation to Junimea). You're still not clarifying what is wrong with "Junimea people" as an intermediary category, not what we should do about Junimists who were neither politicians nor writers.
And please, don't make the mistake of assuming the present state of the category and articles in it is ultimate. Your conjecture that we could not populate the "politicians" category is frankly weird: as you can read for instance in the article Vasile Pogor or Ioan Mire Melik, Junimea was something of a political party already in the 1860s and '70s (it was even part of a government coalition), and became an actual, fully registered, party in the 1880s. There were tens of people elected as Junimea representatives in the several legislatures. In some cases, notoriously including Titu Maiorescu and Petre P. Carp, they belonged to both categories you wish to split this into. Dahn (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they weren't. Notice even how the link says "1880"? There was no Conservative Party in the 1870s, but there was a Junimist party (sometimes known as Juna Dreaptă), and it took part in the first Epureanu government, of 1870, when Maiorescu himself was Education Minister. And even after the creation of a conservative party, Junimea, which was slightly more liberal, existed as a third-party, sometimes allied to the National Liberals. I repeat: in the 1880s, when you claim Maiorescu was representing the Conservative Party, he was in fact a president of the Junimist (or "Constitutionalist") party -- the party ran as such in the elections of 1888, for instance, when it fielded its own candidates. It was only later that Junimea, or at least its political wing, was absorbed back into the Conservative Party. Look, I know we have so far failed at covering that issue in the main articles, but you can read about in Petre P. Carp or Vasile Pogor or Ioan Mire Melik for now. All these articles clearly refer to several intervals where Junimea was a separate political party, before and after 1880. Or see Romanian general election, 1892 for exactly when and how Junimea stopped being a third-party. Dahn (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once we do that, we can have Category:Junimea people as the embracing cat, which would also deal with cases of Junimists who fit neither descriptor, and as a rough correspondent of "people associated with". If you dislike it, you can argue for deleting it in a new CfD submission, though I note that you presented no argument as to why we shouldn't have it. Dahn (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not come up with a new argument. "People who were doing absolutely no more than attending and listening should not be categorized here, for them it is not a defining characteristic" still stands. Besides Category:Junimea does an equally good job in embracing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well your first argument contradicts your second, since, per your system, we would still embrace those articles, but under "Junimea" (which means putting them together with articles about inanimate things or concepts, just because). And I have questioned that theory (and the factualness) of "nothing other than attended" -- this is not about people who did "nothing", this is about people who did something other than write or engage in politics. For instance, people who painted, people who collected books for the society, people who were published by Junimea without necessarily adopting its guidelines, people who organized its Masonic Lodge etc. I really recommend reading up on Junimea before emitting verdicts as to what we "should(n't)" have. Dahn (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In short, these are people whose connection with Junimea is not defining for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are mentioned as Junimists in every single source hat refers to them, but of course you know better. Dahn (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge if necessary per nom & WP:OCASSOC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Junimists; this is evidently the accepted name for participating people, and is similar to some other category names e.g. Category:Peronists. By all means create specific sub-cats for the politicians and writers, but I see no need to purge this one, as the above discussion shows that active participation by people of other professions could be WP:Defining. – Fayenatic London 19:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be a leaning for a rename, but the target is unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 03:23, 14 August 2018 (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:Ultra high-net-worth individuals[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. Timrollpickering 11:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary categorization. No related subject that verifiably establishes $30 million+ as "ultra high-net-worth". - MrX 🖋 02:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, read the article itself, there are a many scholarly sources that establish this definition, including but not limited to: --Prisencolin (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wealth-X and UBS. World Ultra Wealth Report 2013.
  • Grzeskiewiecz, Grzegorz; Tomasz Kozlinski (15–17 June 2004). "High Net Worth Individuals - The Clients of Private Banking" (PDF). 8th International Conferenec of Doctoral Students. Brno University of Technology (Czech Republic).
Delete: This is an arbitrary and unhelpful categorization. Marquardtika (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is this unhelpful when Category:Billionaires supposedly is.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources supplied above are not from reliable publishers, and the term is not commonly used. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given there is no article titled Ultra high-net-worth individuals, no standard meaning to that term and a somewhat arbitrary definition seems pointless. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Geraldo Perez:, check again. This addresses your concerns.--Prisencolin (talk)
Thanks for the new redirect to the existing article. Reading the article it seems the definition varies depending on the source. I saw both 30 and 100 million as the entry point so inclusion seems somewhat arbitrary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of creating this categorization is that while having wealth is a distinguishing quality for many people, Category:Millionaires was deleted via AFD, but we currently don't have any categorization schemes any lower than Category:Billionaires. Since 30 mil is the lower cutoff we can decide on this one.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A whimsical creation. —IB [ Poke ] 04:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an arbitrary creation indeed. Not sure what makes $30M such a landmark value. This also often isn't a defining trait anyway. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whatever amount were used would have to be indexed due to inflation, because someone worth $1 million in 1900 would be at least as wealthy as some worth $30 million today. Also, if a person met the threshold for only one year, would he be in the category for only that year? Clearly this is not a defining characteristic. Indyguy (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-defining. Catrìona (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely subjective criteria and because we cannot nail down what it is, it must be non-defining. Due apologies to Potter Stewart. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Intuitively, it seems odd to me, but the term and categorization, as well as the $30 million threshold, seem to be supported by multiple sources that appear to be reliable, some of which are cited in main article Ultra high-net-worth individual:
  • "the world’s ultra high net worth (UHNW) population, or those with $30m or more in net worth"[1]
  • "Ultra High Net Worth Individuals" defined as those with financial assets ">30" $US million[2]
  • Introducing the term "UHNW" as those having >$30M net worth[3] (but deriving from an earlier (2013) version of the 2017 Wealth-X report in the first bullet-item, so not wholly independent)
  • "The ultra-high net worth (UHNW) designation usually refers to net worth above $30 million."[4]
On the other hand:
  • "the wealthiest are the Ultra High Net Worth investors, with a net worth between $5 million and $25 million"[5]
But that one appears to be an outlier. Of the published sources that use the term "ultra-high net worth "and the abbreviation "UHNW", the consensus seems to be the $30 million threshold.
The inflation aspect does not bother me much; it merely means that the threshold could be at different levels at different points in history, but does not go to its validity. TJRC (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Exclusive UHNWI Analysis: World Ultra Wealth Report 2017 - Wealth-X". Wealth-X.
  2. ^ "High Client Net Worth Individuals: The Clients of Private Banking" (PDF).
  3. ^ Rosplock, Kirby (2014). The Complete Family Office Handbook: A Guide for Affluent Families and the Advisors Who Serve Them. John Wiley & Sons. p. 2. ISBN 9781118367308.
  4. ^ Baker, H. Kent; Filbeck, Greg; Ricciardi, Victor (2017). Financial Behavior: Players, Services, Products, and Markets. Oxford University Press. p. 176. ISBN 9780190269999.
  5. ^ "Who is the UHNW Investor?". spectrem.com.
  • Delete - this is not defining. No-one describes Jennifer Aniston as an ultra high net worth individual. Billionaires are however routinely described as such. (Categories must be sourced in the article, not via some external list or by deduction from facts in the article. Category:Hectomillionaires was deleted at cfd as another precedent.) Oculi (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an indiscriminate categorisation and most of the entries have no references to the category subject that can be met by third party sources. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2018 (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:Places of the Euromaidan[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. ℯxplicit 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE
In 2013, Ukraine had widespread protests called Euromaidan and this category lists different places where those protests occurred. These events seem too transitory to be permanently defining to all these prominent locations. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Nickst as the category creator. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like many revolutions, it happened in many places, but having happened there didn't define them - i.e., make them notable - with few exceptions categorizing like this is not normal per WP:OCVENUE or WP:PERF. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (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:National Heroes of Barbados[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 28#Category:National Heroes of Barbados. ℯxplicit 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TOPTEN and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
In 1998, Barbados celebrated a centenary and created a top ten list (there's literally 10) of influential figures from Barbados' history. Other than sainthood, awards given out decades after a person's death are rarely defining and this category is already listified here.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Ser Amantio di Nicolao as the category creator. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OCAWARD has an exception for the most notable ones, particularly Nobel laureates. This is the state's selection of 10, not that of a random person. We have been deleting national awards given to foreign dignitaries for diplomatic reasons and those given to 1000s of people, but this is different. There is no possibility of expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2018 (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/2018_August_14&oldid=1089087381"