Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

November 24

[edit]

Category:Medical doctors by specialty

[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 January 9#Category:Medical_doctors_by_specialty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the other high level related categories are named Physicians... It's only one word, not two. The words Doctors, Physicians, and sometimes Surgeons are used to describe the same people in different parts of the English speaking world, but hardly anyone uses the term Medical Doctor. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 24 November 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.

Category:Articles containing Pushto-language text

[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. Jawalpopal (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Speedy merge, Pushto redirects to Pashto. Note that this is merging rather than renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, meanwhile I found that there was an earlier discussion about this at CFDS, so I've added that part of the discussion in collapsed format. In retrospect the nomination could better have been kept at CFDS, I've changed my earlier vote accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy -- We should follow the main article. I was brought up with the spelling Pushtu. I think the multiple versions are actually the result of transliteration being an inexact science. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment – related to why I was pinged into the original conversation, IANA, in their language subtag registry which has language codes from ISO 639-1, -2, and -3, uses the name 'Pushto' once and the name 'Pashto' four times giving positional priority (listed first) to 'Pushto' for code ps. Conversely, sil.org (ISO 639-2, -3, -5 custodian) gives positional priority to 'Pashto' for code pus. For codes pst (Central Pashto), pbu (Northern Pashto), pbt (Southern Pashto) there is no Pushto equivalent. {{Lang}} and the {{lang-???}} templates for these codes categorize by language name so ps and pus categorize together but all of the others categorize according to the language name assigned to the code. These templates do not currently support Glottolog code pash1269 nor Linguasphere code 58-ABD-a. The {{lang}} and {{lang-ps}} templates both use Pashto as the language name (there is no {{lang-pus}} at present).—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of that appears to support speedy merging, in the direction proposed, with only one factoid pushing in the opposite direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:07, 2 January 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:Art depicting Old Testament apocrypha themes

[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. – Fayenatic London 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to a more accurate category name, all of this depicts people in the Deuterocanonical books, namely in the book of Judith, the additions to Daniel, the book of Tobit and 2 Maccabees. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 24 November 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.

Category:Fauna of Northern Cyprus

[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 to Category:Fauna of Cyprus and delete the parent (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING (e.g. of Lesser white-toothed shrew). Very incomplete (e.g. see List of mammals of Northern Cyprus). DexDor (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If species are to be categorised by where they occur (i.e. Fauna of <Foo> categories) then this should be for regions of physical geography, not for small regions of political geography (which leads to absurdities such as Category:Fauna of Akrotiri and Dhekelia). DexDor (talk) 09:04, 27 November 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.

Category:Prison healthcare

[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 (non-admin closure). Based on this discussion it is probably a good idea to follow up on User:DexDor's suggestion to have the article renamed. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was recently discussed at CfD, but I just realized that Correctional medicine appears to be the main article for this topic category. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:46, 24 November 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.

Category:Injustice characters

[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 04:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non-defining category, possibly created by sock of blocked User:Musicbyac or User:CensoredScribe ‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 09:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:47, 24 November 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.

Category:Hebrew Bible topics

[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 but purge. Pinging the partipants to do the purging: @Marcocapelle, Laurel Lodged, Fayenatic london, and Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the category is used as a WP:OCMISC category. There are at least three types of articles in it:
  1. articles about Hebrew Bible history, language and study, for example Council of Jamnia and Babylonian vocalization
  2. articles that belong in and are already in a specific Hebrew Bible book category, e.g. Generations of Noah is already in Category:Book of Genesis and Isaiah 42 is already in Category:Book of Isaiah
  3. a few articles for which this category was probably originally intended, e.g. List of capital crimes in the Torah and Women in the Hebrew Bible
One might argue (and I'm not wholly against it) that we should heavily purge the category and keep the category for the latter category of articles, but I'm afraid that the category will then soon again be populated with other stuff. The alternative (as proposed) is to move articles in the 1st category to Category:Hebrew Bible, move articles in the 3rd category to Category:Hebrew Bible content and then delete the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Keep but purge Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:25, 7 December 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.

Category:Okaasan to Issho

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content to warrant an eponymous category for this children's television series. (Category creator not notified: indefinitely blocked.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:16, 24 November 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.

Category:British military physicians

[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:British military medical officers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with the British medical categories Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current options are:
  1. Status quo (Category:British military physicians), consistent with nearly all of Category:Military physicians by nationality;
  2. Category:British military doctors, consistent with Category:Irish military doctors;
  3. Category:British military medical doctors, consistent with Category:British medical doctors; and
  4. Category:British military medical officers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you all seem to like my suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although they may in some places officially be called military surgeons I don't think it is the term we should use, because these days much of their work is psychiatry or epidemology, and I presume we don't plan to subdivide the category by specialism.Rathfelder (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:British military medical officers, per the (rough) consensus above. Oculi (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like British military medical doctors, a) because it's unnecessarily long and b) because not all military doctors are officers, enrolled in official forces. Some, admittedly no British ones that I can think of, are involved in unofficial resistance movements and the like. I would like a term which can be applied as widely as possible. I've changed my mind after reviewing a lot of the articles. Rathfelder (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But "medical officer" is a term that can be applied to any doctor, military or civilian. A medical officer is basically a doctor who is attached to a specific organisation as opposed to (or as well as) being in private practice. You can have medical officers in companies, local authorities, voluntary organisations, hospitals, armed forces, whatever. So "military medical officers" is perfect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am beginning to think this is an English variation usage. To Americans "military medical officer" implies that the person holds the rank of being an officer in the military. I could be wrong about general usage, but the term "medical officer" is a mix of "medical doctor" and "military officer". Creating this distinction among medical doctors just does not seem to be a thing in the United States. On the other hand, I am beginning to wonder if "military doctors" are actually distinct enough to be worth categorizing as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course a military medical officer is usually an officer in the military. But a medical officer in the UK (without the "military" bit) is not necessarily in the military. Even in the USA, "officer" surely means more than just a military officer! In fact, a bit of a Google search would suggest that the term "medical officer" is definitely used in a civilian sense in the USA too. And yes, I think military medical officers are definitely worth categorising, even if merely as a member of a specific corps (e.g. Category:Royal Army Medical Corps officers; note that not all RAMC officers are actually doctors, although most are). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 3 January 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/2017_November_24&oldid=1083677784"