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 move to Commons should happen eventually.
Courcelles 03:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The only contents are images of mosques.
Tassedethe (
talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Move to Commons and delete. Note that all of the images are already in
Category:Sohag which is already tagged to be moved to commons. So upmerging is also an option as is deleting.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per Vegaswikian. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (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 academic journals
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 per nom.
Ruslik_
Zero 15:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any real reason to have separate subcategories for "academic" vs "scientific" vs "medical" here. There's a really small numbers of lists (<100 in total, with lists of medicine journals having something like 6 entries in it), and it would just be better to only have one category. I know small size really isn't an argument normally, but I think readers (and editors) would be served better with only one category to browse, rather than having to figure out where something is / should be classified. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 22:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. The lists are small enough to be manageable and navigable after the merge, and this saves us from having to make editorial decisions about whether e.g. psychotherapy and nursing (now under "academic") should really be under medicine or whether social science or political science (now under "academic") should really be under science. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Tentatively support as per David Eppstein. If a librarian professional interjects, I'd follow their opinion.
TheGrappler (
talk) 04:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support The categories can be merged without much problem, I think. Alternatively, the categories for the lists articles should be organized in parallel to the top categories in the category Academic journals by subject area (but that would increase the number of cats and that is not really necessary). --
Crusio (
talk) 07:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment What's not mentioned in the above is that both these categories refer upwards into specifically scientific and medical categories; that could no longer be achieved from the academic category so something would be lost?
AllyD (
talk) 10:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Query -- The question is perhaps whether some of the medical and scientific journals are in fact non-academic, in the sense that they are intended to provide continuing education to practitioners, at least as much as to promote debate among academics. Many professions have what is popularly referred to as a "trade rag", commonly published by a trade association. These generally have few pretensions to be academic. Perhaps my query is looking for an alternative name for the parent.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment 1 There is actually no clear distinction between a professional magazine and an academic journal. Many peer-reviewed journals contain some material that is scientific news, written by the editorial staff,; Nature and Science are particularly known for extensive material of this nature, and the scientific merit of some editorially written journals, such as Journal of Chemical Education, is as great as most peer-reviewed journals in the subject (and, contrastingly, many so called peer-reviewed journals are accept almost anything that gets submitted). The like is true of medicine: considerable material in
BMJ is other than peer-reviewed articlesThe actual question is the degree and quality of editorial control, which cannot necessarily be judged from the statements the journal may make about itself. Most indexing services do not differentiate, and consider anything under sufficient stated editorial control the equivalent of a peer-reviewed journal--in my opinion, the sensible practice. (COI--I have been on the board of advisors or a consultant for some such services.) In Wikipedia, there have often been conflicts about the reliability of information in journals as contrasted to professional magazines; our RS specifications are naïve, and there is often no simple answer. In my opinion, the overall category is best called academic and professional periodicals, which can be subdivided between these reporting original research, those publishing reviews (which in the past have rarely been peer-review in the formal sense, but now often are), those publishing conference proceedings (which in turn may be peer-reviewed to varying degrees),those presenting book reviews (which are almost never peer-reviewed, but the sole responsibility of the author of the review) and those offering news and opinion--with some, such as those mentioned, needing to be listed in all 5 of the categories. In applied fields, such as engineering, or law , or medicine, or business, some, or most, or even almost all, of the publications are not academic in the narrow sense, and again, many would need to be considered in both sections. I am not quite satisfied with the term "scientific" as a designation, for it excludes the humanities. which have academic journals & professional magazines also--and some fields, such as history, can variously be considered social science or humanities. (again, the solution may need to be dual listing). DGG (
talk ) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
There's a clear distinction between academic journals and professional magazines. Academic journals are peer-reviewed (whether the peer-review process is rigourous or not is another debate) and focus on publishing new results, reviews, etc... Professional magazines focus on being a useful resources for professionals, and will not be peer reviewed. They will instead focus on editorials, unreviewed letters to the editor, do some journalism related to the field, cover product releases, publish obituaries, and cover legal and political things relevant to the field. Physical Review Letters (academic journal) vs Physics Today (professional magazine). Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The distinction is not always as clear as those two (very few journal publishers in any field have quite the rigour of the APS): How do you classify Science and Nature ? they're used equally as both: are they peer-reviewed journals with extensive magazine content, or professional magazines with extensive peer-reviewed content? I recall when Nature proposed to sell libraries an electronic version of the peer-reviewed content only, and make the magazine content available electronically only to individual subscriber--I recall it well, for I was one of the leaders of the library boycott that forced them to make it all available to libraries also. A great many scientific journals, especially those published by societies, have some magazine content, especially unedited lists of meetings presentations--which are in turn only sometimes-- not usually-- peer-reviewed. Some material in some professional magazines is the equivalent of peer-reviewed by the editors who are at least equal in expertise to normal peer reviewers. some peer-reviewed journals use only the board of editor to do the reviewing. What is the difference between the two approaches? Additionally, a good many medical journals such as JAMA and NEJM now send much of their magazine content for outside peer-review: see the author instructions on their websites.(I was going to use those two as examples of mixed content, but it is not actually clear how they treat all the possible material they include.)
BMJ, however, clearly has extensive non-peer-reviewed magazine content: see
the instructions for one particular type of article The status of any given article in any publication has to be looked at carefully, and will not always be clear even so. DGG (
talk ) 19:42, 18 January 2011 (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:Fictional theatre
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (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.
Brest
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 all.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity.
Alansohn (
talk) 04:24, 16 January 2011 (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:Encirclements in 1941
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. Inappropriate in category space. Perhaps can be recreated as an article?. Members of this cat are otherwise well-categorized.
Tassedethe (
talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Recreate as article, delete category as per nom. You know you're in trouble when the category text has citations!
TheGrappler (
talk) 04:38, 16 January 2011 (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:Districts in Taipei City
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 per nom.
Ruslik_
Zero 15:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Currently, this category and the parent category (also mentioned below) both exist, but the parent category only contains this category. There is no reason for both to exist. At the same time, I also think that "of" is more syntactically correct than "in," so I am nominating a merger and name change at the same time. --
Nlu (
talk) 13:18, 15 January 2011 (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:Archbishops of Melbourne
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 per nom. I agree that bishops of foo (in plural) is not a title and should not be capitalized.
Ruslik_
Zero 14:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There are/was (at least) two offices of "Archbishop of Melbourne" etc. - Roman Catholic and Anglican. Thus these names are ambiguous.
Mattinbgn (
talk) 10:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. In each case, the title of the office is "Bishop of Foo" or "Archbishop of Foo". Disambiguators should not be added unless needed, and where they are needed they should be added as a parenthesised suffix, e.g. "Bishop of Foo (Anglican)". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Firstly, there is
Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Melbourne. The Anglican church has no special status in Australia and indeed I would suggest that unless specified most Melburnians would take a mention of the "Archbishop of Melbourne" as meaning the Roman Catholic one unless context suggested otherwise. So, disambiguation is most certainly needed. As for the parenthesised suffix point, I agree entirely but that would be inconsistent with every category in
Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese and
Category:Anglican bishops by diocese that is in the least bit ambiguous. If you want to have a mass renaming of "bishop" categories, go for it but in the short term some consistency may be useful, no? --
Mattinbgn (
talk) 09:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
It appears you do want a mass renaming of bishop categories. When and if it reaches a full CfD I will support disambiguation by parenthesised suffix. Be aware that will make the categories inconsistent with the articles. --
Mattinbgn (
talk) 09:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
If other categories are incorrectly named, they should be fixed. But regardless of whether the denominational label is prefixed or suffixed, the addition of the denomination does not justify decapatalising the name of the post. If two denoms have a post called "Bishop of Foo", then sticking an adjective in front of it does not alter the fact that "Bishop of Foo" is a title and should still be capitalised. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
But 'bishops of Foo' is not a title, so it shouldn't be capitalised. I am quite surprised at this objection as there must be thousands of categories capitalised in this fashion.
Occuli (
talk) 14:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Titles are usually capitalised. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is it worth differentiating between the two based on the diocese rather than by the denomination of the bishop themselves? For example, instead of "Anglican bishops of Foo" vs "Catholic bishops of Foo" (or "Bishops of Foo (Anglican)" vs "Bishops of Foo (Catholic)"), it would be "Bishops of the Catholic Diocese of Foo" vs "Bishops of the Anglican Diocese of Foo". It may be a technical point, but the difference between the two is the diocese, not the denominations of the individual. There's a big geographical difference between the
Anglican Diocese of Adelaide and the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide (for example). -- Lear'sFool 06:52, 24 January 2011 (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:Teddybears STLHM albums
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 per nom.
Ruslik_
Zero 15:09, 29 January 2011 (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 buried in Braintree, Massachusetts
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.
Rename per Occuli. A perfectly valid and sensible way of storing a part of the local history of Braintree. Not a trivial characteristic of the buried person either.
TheGrappler (
talk) 04:36, 16 January 2011 (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:Fictional lieutenants
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. Not properly tagged.
Ruslik_
Zero 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't understand how a category for every fictional character who has the rank of lieutenant is useful. A lieutenant in a military unit is not the same thing as a lieutenant on a police force or a lieutenant in an organized crime family. Just being a lieutenant doesn't seem to be a strong enough association between fictional characters from across every fictional genre.
I Want My GayTV (
talk) 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It's much better to categorise fictional characters by their type of occupation, than by rank. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I think Mike Selinker is onto something here. Naval and military captains in the same category is silly, but splitting the ranks need not be. In fact it may make more sense for fictional characters than real people, given that fictional characters may only have one or two ranks in their appearances, whereas a real person may have held many during their career!
TheGrappler (
talk) 04:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep but Downmerge Some: A lot of the articles in this cat, should actually be in the
Category:Starfleet lieutenants sub-cat. (I can't believe I just said that, but there it is!).
RevelationDirect (
talk) 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The other categories Mike Selinker mentions should also be CFDed. They're far too broad and rather pointless. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comments – the category is not properly tagged. Neither do its parents make sense: some of its members being police and others army means it is a subcat of neither, not both.
Occuli (
talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (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.
Please view and comment my proposal about the Category:Poets
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:Procedural close - not an actual CfD discussion, pages not tagged, in project space.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Please view and comment my proposal about the Category:Poets :
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:History of Australasian and Oceanic Clothing
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:Rename. This category seems to be for clothing retaing to Oceania - i.e., Oceanian clothing. "Oceanic clothing" would be things like scuba suits.
Grutness...wha? 01:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oops! Didn't notice the C - thanks! Yes, I'd personally prefer just Oceanian, too - Australia is usually included in there automatically. Have amended the proposal accordingly.
Grutness...wha? 09:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I think it's an excellent idea, and I named the category in the first place. I don't know what I was thinking ... probably tired that night. Thanks for the fix.
Artemis-Arethusa (
talk) 18:15, 15 January 2011 (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.
People from, part 3
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 all.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support all iff the key articles are also disambiguated in this way, which I assume they all will be (e.g.,
Crosby, Merseyside).
Grutness...wha? 01:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
If someone wants to double check I'll be happy.
Tassedethe (
talk) 02:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nominator. I have checked all the categories, and can confirm that in each case: a) the head article is named as per the nom's proposed renaming, and b) the bare name is geographically ambiguous. Support re-creating these as dab categories using {{category ambiguous}}. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename all, per nom. Lugnuts (
talk) 09:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename all – per nom and re-create all as dab categories using {{category ambiguous}} per the assiduous BHG.
Occuli (
talk) 12:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Renames to match title of parent articles and reduce ambiguity.
Alansohn (
talk) 04:26, 16 January 2011 (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 The move to Commons should happen eventually.
Courcelles 03:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The only contents are images of mosques.
Tassedethe (
talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Move to Commons and delete. Note that all of the images are already in
Category:Sohag which is already tagged to be moved to commons. So upmerging is also an option as is deleting.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per Vegaswikian. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (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 academic journals
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 per nom.
Ruslik_
Zero 15:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any real reason to have separate subcategories for "academic" vs "scientific" vs "medical" here. There's a really small numbers of lists (<100 in total, with lists of medicine journals having something like 6 entries in it), and it would just be better to only have one category. I know small size really isn't an argument normally, but I think readers (and editors) would be served better with only one category to browse, rather than having to figure out where something is / should be classified. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 22:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. The lists are small enough to be manageable and navigable after the merge, and this saves us from having to make editorial decisions about whether e.g. psychotherapy and nursing (now under "academic") should really be under medicine or whether social science or political science (now under "academic") should really be under science. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Tentatively support as per David Eppstein. If a librarian professional interjects, I'd follow their opinion.
TheGrappler (
talk) 04:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support The categories can be merged without much problem, I think. Alternatively, the categories for the lists articles should be organized in parallel to the top categories in the category Academic journals by subject area (but that would increase the number of cats and that is not really necessary). --
Crusio (
talk) 07:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment What's not mentioned in the above is that both these categories refer upwards into specifically scientific and medical categories; that could no longer be achieved from the academic category so something would be lost?
AllyD (
talk) 10:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Query -- The question is perhaps whether some of the medical and scientific journals are in fact non-academic, in the sense that they are intended to provide continuing education to practitioners, at least as much as to promote debate among academics. Many professions have what is popularly referred to as a "trade rag", commonly published by a trade association. These generally have few pretensions to be academic. Perhaps my query is looking for an alternative name for the parent.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment 1 There is actually no clear distinction between a professional magazine and an academic journal. Many peer-reviewed journals contain some material that is scientific news, written by the editorial staff,; Nature and Science are particularly known for extensive material of this nature, and the scientific merit of some editorially written journals, such as Journal of Chemical Education, is as great as most peer-reviewed journals in the subject (and, contrastingly, many so called peer-reviewed journals are accept almost anything that gets submitted). The like is true of medicine: considerable material in
BMJ is other than peer-reviewed articlesThe actual question is the degree and quality of editorial control, which cannot necessarily be judged from the statements the journal may make about itself. Most indexing services do not differentiate, and consider anything under sufficient stated editorial control the equivalent of a peer-reviewed journal--in my opinion, the sensible practice. (COI--I have been on the board of advisors or a consultant for some such services.) In Wikipedia, there have often been conflicts about the reliability of information in journals as contrasted to professional magazines; our RS specifications are naïve, and there is often no simple answer. In my opinion, the overall category is best called academic and professional periodicals, which can be subdivided between these reporting original research, those publishing reviews (which in the past have rarely been peer-review in the formal sense, but now often are), those publishing conference proceedings (which in turn may be peer-reviewed to varying degrees),those presenting book reviews (which are almost never peer-reviewed, but the sole responsibility of the author of the review) and those offering news and opinion--with some, such as those mentioned, needing to be listed in all 5 of the categories. In applied fields, such as engineering, or law , or medicine, or business, some, or most, or even almost all, of the publications are not academic in the narrow sense, and again, many would need to be considered in both sections. I am not quite satisfied with the term "scientific" as a designation, for it excludes the humanities. which have academic journals & professional magazines also--and some fields, such as history, can variously be considered social science or humanities. (again, the solution may need to be dual listing). DGG (
talk ) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
There's a clear distinction between academic journals and professional magazines. Academic journals are peer-reviewed (whether the peer-review process is rigourous or not is another debate) and focus on publishing new results, reviews, etc... Professional magazines focus on being a useful resources for professionals, and will not be peer reviewed. They will instead focus on editorials, unreviewed letters to the editor, do some journalism related to the field, cover product releases, publish obituaries, and cover legal and political things relevant to the field. Physical Review Letters (academic journal) vs Physics Today (professional magazine). Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The distinction is not always as clear as those two (very few journal publishers in any field have quite the rigour of the APS): How do you classify Science and Nature ? they're used equally as both: are they peer-reviewed journals with extensive magazine content, or professional magazines with extensive peer-reviewed content? I recall when Nature proposed to sell libraries an electronic version of the peer-reviewed content only, and make the magazine content available electronically only to individual subscriber--I recall it well, for I was one of the leaders of the library boycott that forced them to make it all available to libraries also. A great many scientific journals, especially those published by societies, have some magazine content, especially unedited lists of meetings presentations--which are in turn only sometimes-- not usually-- peer-reviewed. Some material in some professional magazines is the equivalent of peer-reviewed by the editors who are at least equal in expertise to normal peer reviewers. some peer-reviewed journals use only the board of editor to do the reviewing. What is the difference between the two approaches? Additionally, a good many medical journals such as JAMA and NEJM now send much of their magazine content for outside peer-review: see the author instructions on their websites.(I was going to use those two as examples of mixed content, but it is not actually clear how they treat all the possible material they include.)
BMJ, however, clearly has extensive non-peer-reviewed magazine content: see
the instructions for one particular type of article The status of any given article in any publication has to be looked at carefully, and will not always be clear even so. DGG (
talk ) 19:42, 18 January 2011 (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:Fictional theatre
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (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.
Brest
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 all.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity.
Alansohn (
talk) 04:24, 16 January 2011 (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:Encirclements in 1941
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. Inappropriate in category space. Perhaps can be recreated as an article?. Members of this cat are otherwise well-categorized.
Tassedethe (
talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Recreate as article, delete category as per nom. You know you're in trouble when the category text has citations!
TheGrappler (
talk) 04:38, 16 January 2011 (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:Districts in Taipei City
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 per nom.
Ruslik_
Zero 15:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Currently, this category and the parent category (also mentioned below) both exist, but the parent category only contains this category. There is no reason for both to exist. At the same time, I also think that "of" is more syntactically correct than "in," so I am nominating a merger and name change at the same time. --
Nlu (
talk) 13:18, 15 January 2011 (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:Archbishops of Melbourne
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 per nom. I agree that bishops of foo (in plural) is not a title and should not be capitalized.
Ruslik_
Zero 14:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There are/was (at least) two offices of "Archbishop of Melbourne" etc. - Roman Catholic and Anglican. Thus these names are ambiguous.
Mattinbgn (
talk) 10:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. In each case, the title of the office is "Bishop of Foo" or "Archbishop of Foo". Disambiguators should not be added unless needed, and where they are needed they should be added as a parenthesised suffix, e.g. "Bishop of Foo (Anglican)". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Firstly, there is
Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Melbourne. The Anglican church has no special status in Australia and indeed I would suggest that unless specified most Melburnians would take a mention of the "Archbishop of Melbourne" as meaning the Roman Catholic one unless context suggested otherwise. So, disambiguation is most certainly needed. As for the parenthesised suffix point, I agree entirely but that would be inconsistent with every category in
Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese and
Category:Anglican bishops by diocese that is in the least bit ambiguous. If you want to have a mass renaming of "bishop" categories, go for it but in the short term some consistency may be useful, no? --
Mattinbgn (
talk) 09:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
It appears you do want a mass renaming of bishop categories. When and if it reaches a full CfD I will support disambiguation by parenthesised suffix. Be aware that will make the categories inconsistent with the articles. --
Mattinbgn (
talk) 09:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
If other categories are incorrectly named, they should be fixed. But regardless of whether the denominational label is prefixed or suffixed, the addition of the denomination does not justify decapatalising the name of the post. If two denoms have a post called "Bishop of Foo", then sticking an adjective in front of it does not alter the fact that "Bishop of Foo" is a title and should still be capitalised. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
But 'bishops of Foo' is not a title, so it shouldn't be capitalised. I am quite surprised at this objection as there must be thousands of categories capitalised in this fashion.
Occuli (
talk) 14:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Titles are usually capitalised. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is it worth differentiating between the two based on the diocese rather than by the denomination of the bishop themselves? For example, instead of "Anglican bishops of Foo" vs "Catholic bishops of Foo" (or "Bishops of Foo (Anglican)" vs "Bishops of Foo (Catholic)"), it would be "Bishops of the Catholic Diocese of Foo" vs "Bishops of the Anglican Diocese of Foo". It may be a technical point, but the difference between the two is the diocese, not the denominations of the individual. There's a big geographical difference between the
Anglican Diocese of Adelaide and the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide (for example). -- Lear'sFool 06:52, 24 January 2011 (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:Teddybears STLHM albums
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 per nom.
Ruslik_
Zero 15:09, 29 January 2011 (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 buried in Braintree, Massachusetts
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.
Rename per Occuli. A perfectly valid and sensible way of storing a part of the local history of Braintree. Not a trivial characteristic of the buried person either.
TheGrappler (
talk) 04:36, 16 January 2011 (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:Fictional lieutenants
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. Not properly tagged.
Ruslik_
Zero 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't understand how a category for every fictional character who has the rank of lieutenant is useful. A lieutenant in a military unit is not the same thing as a lieutenant on a police force or a lieutenant in an organized crime family. Just being a lieutenant doesn't seem to be a strong enough association between fictional characters from across every fictional genre.
I Want My GayTV (
talk) 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It's much better to categorise fictional characters by their type of occupation, than by rank. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I think Mike Selinker is onto something here. Naval and military captains in the same category is silly, but splitting the ranks need not be. In fact it may make more sense for fictional characters than real people, given that fictional characters may only have one or two ranks in their appearances, whereas a real person may have held many during their career!
TheGrappler (
talk) 04:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep but Downmerge Some: A lot of the articles in this cat, should actually be in the
Category:Starfleet lieutenants sub-cat. (I can't believe I just said that, but there it is!).
RevelationDirect (
talk) 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The other categories Mike Selinker mentions should also be CFDed. They're far too broad and rather pointless. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comments – the category is not properly tagged. Neither do its parents make sense: some of its members being police and others army means it is a subcat of neither, not both.
Occuli (
talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (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.
Please view and comment my proposal about the Category:Poets
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:Procedural close - not an actual CfD discussion, pages not tagged, in project space.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Please view and comment my proposal about the Category:Poets :
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:History of Australasian and Oceanic Clothing
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:Rename. This category seems to be for clothing retaing to Oceania - i.e., Oceanian clothing. "Oceanic clothing" would be things like scuba suits.
Grutness...wha? 01:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oops! Didn't notice the C - thanks! Yes, I'd personally prefer just Oceanian, too - Australia is usually included in there automatically. Have amended the proposal accordingly.
Grutness...wha? 09:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I think it's an excellent idea, and I named the category in the first place. I don't know what I was thinking ... probably tired that night. Thanks for the fix.
Artemis-Arethusa (
talk) 18:15, 15 January 2011 (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.
People from, part 3
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 all.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support all iff the key articles are also disambiguated in this way, which I assume they all will be (e.g.,
Crosby, Merseyside).
Grutness...wha? 01:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
If someone wants to double check I'll be happy.
Tassedethe (
talk) 02:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nominator. I have checked all the categories, and can confirm that in each case: a) the head article is named as per the nom's proposed renaming, and b) the bare name is geographically ambiguous. Support re-creating these as dab categories using {{category ambiguous}}. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename all, per nom. Lugnuts (
talk) 09:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename all – per nom and re-create all as dab categories using {{category ambiguous}} per the assiduous BHG.
Occuli (
talk) 12:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Renames to match title of parent articles and reduce ambiguity.
Alansohn (
talk) 04:26, 16 January 2011 (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.