The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Academic journals by publisher
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.
Oppose -- adding "academic" is unnecessary, since the publishers are all unlikely to publish any other kind. I see no reason for italicising Publishing. Arguably Nature might be but I do not think this necessary or desirable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The italics in "publishing" was to indicate the difference with the original proposal, since corrected. Adding "academic" will make these categories consistent with the vast majority of other categories dealing with academic journals. It will also remove any ambiguity: these categories are for academic journals, the Wall Street Journal is not intended to be part of this... In addition, the proposal is about more than just adding "academic": it also intends to correct the names of the involved publishers. :-) --
Crusio (
talk)
16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Also, most of these have been created by me, at the wrong location. I meant to create them at "Foobar academic journals" but realize it too late. So I brought it at CFD for discussion and bot support. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}23:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
You know what they say about a foolish consistency. Do these publishers have categories of journals that are not academic journals? No? Then what's the point of including that word in the category name? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
(EC with below post) Yes? For example, Elsevier publishes academic journals, trade magazines, regular magazines... The consistency here would not be foolish, all the categories were named this way on January 4, except I think three. On January 4, I created ~6 of them at the wrong name because of a brain fart. Inconstancy here is what seems to be foolish. There's no reason why
Category:Polish Academy of Sciences journals should be named against convention... so why should it remain named against convention?Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
So we can have a category for Elsevier magazines as well as one for Elsevier journals. That doesn't make "academic" less redundant. And if a publisher did need to have its academic journals disambiguated from some other kind of journal, we can use "academic journals" for that publisher without having to impose the same disambiguation on the other publishers, just as we don't
disambiguate article titles unless they are actually ambiguous. That was why I brought in the part about foolish consistency: I don't think consistency requires us to disambiguate everything when most things are already unambiguous. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
"Journal" by itself may be ambiguous, but that doesn't imply that "academic" is non-redundant in the context of these categories. We're unlikely to have categories for personal diaries or local newspapers published by the Nature Publishing Group, so there is no danger of confusion. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
(unindent) Comment A while ago I started to include "academic" in all new categories that I created for journal articles. The reason is that, even though it may seem redundant to academics like us, it is not to most other editors. I've had lots of discussion with people protesting that I categorized a certain article in a "magazine" cat, because the periodical had the word "journal" in the title. Many newspapers do, too (Wall Street Journal, for example). There are publishers that have newspapers, magazines and academic journals in their portfolio (Elsevier and the owners of Nature Publishing Group -Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group- for example). Naming these categories more clearly would help making things clearer to editors not familiar with this project, IMHO. --
Crusio (
talk)
08:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose, and remove "academic" from the other categories. Crusio, I understand what you were thinking, but I think adding "academic" to newly created categories in an established category tree was a mistake. A better tack might have been nominating the established categories to add "academic."--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
21:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
...but the category tree is already established with the "academic" in it!? I fucked up and created the new ones without the academic. If you remove the 6 I created by mistake on January 4, there were 46 categories. Of these, 40 had "academic journals", 3 had "journals", and 3 had "publications [as they are slightly larger than simply academic journals]". Post fuck-up, the count changed to 42/9/3. If I didn't fuck up, it would have been 46/3/3, and we'd be renaming the three weirdos. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}21:37, 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:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations
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.
Comment "Large" is POV. Actually every place has a 100% ehtnic population, assuming that every one has an ethnicity. I assume we are talking about places with a "non-European ethnic majority"; if so the category name should be along those lines.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, I noted in the original CfD that the concept of "ethnic populations" is problematic and is perhaps the result of the widespread tendency for people to use the word "ethnic" only to refer to ethnic minorities. I should have probably reposted that here before now.
Cordless Larry (
talk)
11:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't think "
ethnic enclave" is appropriate for the category name, because the simple fact that a community has a large number of a particular ethnic group doesn't necessarily mean that they all live together in a "neighbourhood, district, or suburb which retains some cultural distinction." postdlf (talk)
14:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment The current title is a widely-used form of nonsense: everyone has an ethnicity, so 100% of every area has an ethnic population. (Just noticed that Peterkingiron made that point above, but it's worth repeating). I think that what is intended is to refer to communities which are numerically dominated by an ethnic group which is in a minority in the US as a whole. None of the proposed renames solves the problem so far: RevelationDirect's suggestion of "ethnic majority" is much better than the current usage, though it could be read as assuming that "ethnic" applies only to non-majority groups, and raising that perspective highlight the wider problem that as a collection these lists are racially-biased to select non-white groups (where's the list of WASP cities?). The fact that the non-list categories are called "ethnic enclaves" suggests to me that there is a much wider problem of terminology in this area of wikipedia: describing an area where one group is in a majority as an "enclave" seems to me to be highly prejudicial terminology. I expect that categorising
Beverly Hills as a "white enclave" would generate a furore ... so why is this language being used for non-white areas? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: In American English, "ethnic" often refers to the national origin of white people (Italian, Irish, German Americans) but I've never heard it applied to white people generally. I don't know if that helps or hurts my suggestion of going with majorities but I'm not even sure it's the best solution, just better than what's there now.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
06:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete unless a robust definition and a more appropriate name can be provided. So far no one has. "Large" is subjective and cannot be allowed in a category. If the object is to identify places with a majority of Blacks or a majority of Hispanics, we might have the basis of two categories, but a place with 30% blacks and 30% Hispanics has two substantial ethnic minorities, not an ethnic majority.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
comment when I created this category I took the articles from
Category:Demographics of the United States where they will all go back to if this category is deleted--which already had too many disparate articles. I took the list articles that were about populated places having this or that ethnic majority. I did not write those articles and did not define what was considered 'ethnic'--I just took what I found. Other articles were about 'large' populations of certain ethnic groups in populated places. Some articles use 10,000 as the cutoff; some use 100,000; some use other cutoffs. Again, I took whatever list articles there were and put them into this category. No one seems to be complaining about the articles being named with 'large': the contentns of the article define what 'large' is in each case. The lists had and have the common thread of ethnicity in American demographics. Perhaps a better name would be
Category:Lists of U.S. populated places by ethnic group or
Category:Lists of U.S. populated places with minority majorities (here one must remove the 'large' lists from this group)
Hmains (
talk)
04:44, 11 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:procedural close. There's no reason raised against this, but CfD doesn't really approve things like this out of the gate. It's better discussed on a WikiProject page. If you do this, use "movement" rather than "movement." --
Mike Selinker (
talk)
03:11, 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:Native inhibitants of Tamil Nadu
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Clan Macaulay of Lewis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia expand-section box with explanation text
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. This category tracks certain uses of the {{expand-section}} template. The category page states "We will probably remove this logging from the template and delete this category some weeks from now, when we have studied the existing cases out there." That was in March 2009. I don't think this category is really helping anyone anymore. This is the sort of list I would expect to be generated by a bot, and placed on someone's user subpage. — This, that, and the other (talk)06:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete: temporary category to inform discussion on modification of a maintenance template, discussion long since concluded, so category redundant (unless somebody suddenly thinks up some new reason why we desperately need it). HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
On second thoughts -- simply remove the code for this category from the template (needs to be done anyway) & speedy the category once empty. HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:02, 8 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:Dermatology 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.
Nominator's rationale: I started the
WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the
Category:Dermatology subcategories use the term "Dermatologic"; therefore, I am proposing this rename to maintain this convention. At this time, almost all the dermatology subcategories already use the term "Dermatologic". ---
My Core Competency is Competency (
talk)
04:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Was going to support but Andy Walsh gives a good point. Should the other journals also be renamed (hematologic, immunologic, radiologic etc.)? Would there hence need to be a more global discussion on all the other journals? ogy vs ogic? Dermatologic makes sense to me although for some reason I feel I hear dermatology more often. Cheers!
Calaka (
talk)
06:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am reluctant to oppose an expert of whom I think very highly, but it is more important to be consistent with the other journal categories than with the other dermatology categories. With some exceptions, the name of the field is used rather than the adjective: consider the ambiguity of "educational journals" (aren't all journals educational) or "physical journals" (which now usually means those in paper format). The exceptions are usually for very general subjects, such as " medical journals". There are are few which ere equally likely : both "chemistry journal" and "chemical journal". Journals where more than one word is needed are never use the adjective: "internal medical journals"is never used, nor "organic chemical journals".And there's a third form possible in some cases: "botanic journals" is as good as "botanical journal" or "botany journals" I short, I think the present wording is clearer in the absence of evidence for standard use otherwise DGG (
talk )
18:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't take any of this opposition personally; this is what CfD's are for. Having said that, with regard to the other subcategories of
Category:Dermatology, would you also recommend the use of "Dermatology" over "Dermatologic"? If so, given the above consensus, I think those could easily be renamed. ---
My Core Competency is Competency (
talk)
19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose – I agree with DGG's well-argued case that consistency within the large
Category:Medical journals overrides consistency within the local category (and we are not going to change 'Biology journals' to 'Biologic journals', are we?). The terminology within
Category:Dermatology is perhaps best left to dermatologists.
Occuli (
talk)
19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose I see the reasoning for wanting consistency with all the categorized dermatology sub-categories; however, in this instance, I also feel that the consistency should be maintained at the Wikipedia-wide level as is seen with the other journal categories currently present.
CalmerWaters14:27, 10 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:YouTube video producers
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. I am not convinced that category belongs. YouTube does not have producers, does it? I agree that for some individuals, this could be defining. But based on the current contents which includes a lot more then individuals, we have a good example of how this subjective criteria for inclusion will make the current form unmaintainable. If deleted, recreation could be allowed with better inclusion criteria. If kept it needs a new name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep: I don't care what the category is called, but it needs to exist. There are a large number of individuals who obviously belong together in a category because they produce videos on YouTube. —
Lowellian (
reply)
20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Seems like another in a long line of "internet users" categories, like "people who Twitter", "people that use MySpace", "people with 5000 friends on Facebook" etc.
Good Ol’factory(talk)07:41, 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.
Welfare by nation and Public welfare in Puerto Rico
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 main category in line with the usual naming conventions ie "by country" (which I overlooked when adding subcategories by country). And rename subcategory for Puerto Rico to conform to main category. Note that there is no article called
Public welfare in Puerto Rico; it is a redirect.
Hugo999 (
talk)
01:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename both per nom. Note that in American English, "public welfare" is something of a redundancy to begin with; "
welfare reform," "
welfare queen," etc. refer exclusively to public assistance. Private assistance is generally referred to as "charity."-
choster (
talk)
19:46, 8 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 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.
Academic journals by publisher
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.
Oppose -- adding "academic" is unnecessary, since the publishers are all unlikely to publish any other kind. I see no reason for italicising Publishing. Arguably Nature might be but I do not think this necessary or desirable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The italics in "publishing" was to indicate the difference with the original proposal, since corrected. Adding "academic" will make these categories consistent with the vast majority of other categories dealing with academic journals. It will also remove any ambiguity: these categories are for academic journals, the Wall Street Journal is not intended to be part of this... In addition, the proposal is about more than just adding "academic": it also intends to correct the names of the involved publishers. :-) --
Crusio (
talk)
16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Also, most of these have been created by me, at the wrong location. I meant to create them at "Foobar academic journals" but realize it too late. So I brought it at CFD for discussion and bot support. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}23:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
You know what they say about a foolish consistency. Do these publishers have categories of journals that are not academic journals? No? Then what's the point of including that word in the category name? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
(EC with below post) Yes? For example, Elsevier publishes academic journals, trade magazines, regular magazines... The consistency here would not be foolish, all the categories were named this way on January 4, except I think three. On January 4, I created ~6 of them at the wrong name because of a brain fart. Inconstancy here is what seems to be foolish. There's no reason why
Category:Polish Academy of Sciences journals should be named against convention... so why should it remain named against convention?Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
So we can have a category for Elsevier magazines as well as one for Elsevier journals. That doesn't make "academic" less redundant. And if a publisher did need to have its academic journals disambiguated from some other kind of journal, we can use "academic journals" for that publisher without having to impose the same disambiguation on the other publishers, just as we don't
disambiguate article titles unless they are actually ambiguous. That was why I brought in the part about foolish consistency: I don't think consistency requires us to disambiguate everything when most things are already unambiguous. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
"Journal" by itself may be ambiguous, but that doesn't imply that "academic" is non-redundant in the context of these categories. We're unlikely to have categories for personal diaries or local newspapers published by the Nature Publishing Group, so there is no danger of confusion. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
(unindent) Comment A while ago I started to include "academic" in all new categories that I created for journal articles. The reason is that, even though it may seem redundant to academics like us, it is not to most other editors. I've had lots of discussion with people protesting that I categorized a certain article in a "magazine" cat, because the periodical had the word "journal" in the title. Many newspapers do, too (Wall Street Journal, for example). There are publishers that have newspapers, magazines and academic journals in their portfolio (Elsevier and the owners of Nature Publishing Group -Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group- for example). Naming these categories more clearly would help making things clearer to editors not familiar with this project, IMHO. --
Crusio (
talk)
08:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose, and remove "academic" from the other categories. Crusio, I understand what you were thinking, but I think adding "academic" to newly created categories in an established category tree was a mistake. A better tack might have been nominating the established categories to add "academic."--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
21:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
...but the category tree is already established with the "academic" in it!? I fucked up and created the new ones without the academic. If you remove the 6 I created by mistake on January 4, there were 46 categories. Of these, 40 had "academic journals", 3 had "journals", and 3 had "publications [as they are slightly larger than simply academic journals]". Post fuck-up, the count changed to 42/9/3. If I didn't fuck up, it would have been 46/3/3, and we'd be renaming the three weirdos. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}21:37, 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:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations
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.
Comment "Large" is POV. Actually every place has a 100% ehtnic population, assuming that every one has an ethnicity. I assume we are talking about places with a "non-European ethnic majority"; if so the category name should be along those lines.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, I noted in the original CfD that the concept of "ethnic populations" is problematic and is perhaps the result of the widespread tendency for people to use the word "ethnic" only to refer to ethnic minorities. I should have probably reposted that here before now.
Cordless Larry (
talk)
11:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't think "
ethnic enclave" is appropriate for the category name, because the simple fact that a community has a large number of a particular ethnic group doesn't necessarily mean that they all live together in a "neighbourhood, district, or suburb which retains some cultural distinction." postdlf (talk)
14:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment The current title is a widely-used form of nonsense: everyone has an ethnicity, so 100% of every area has an ethnic population. (Just noticed that Peterkingiron made that point above, but it's worth repeating). I think that what is intended is to refer to communities which are numerically dominated by an ethnic group which is in a minority in the US as a whole. None of the proposed renames solves the problem so far: RevelationDirect's suggestion of "ethnic majority" is much better than the current usage, though it could be read as assuming that "ethnic" applies only to non-majority groups, and raising that perspective highlight the wider problem that as a collection these lists are racially-biased to select non-white groups (where's the list of WASP cities?). The fact that the non-list categories are called "ethnic enclaves" suggests to me that there is a much wider problem of terminology in this area of wikipedia: describing an area where one group is in a majority as an "enclave" seems to me to be highly prejudicial terminology. I expect that categorising
Beverly Hills as a "white enclave" would generate a furore ... so why is this language being used for non-white areas? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: In American English, "ethnic" often refers to the national origin of white people (Italian, Irish, German Americans) but I've never heard it applied to white people generally. I don't know if that helps or hurts my suggestion of going with majorities but I'm not even sure it's the best solution, just better than what's there now.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
06:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete unless a robust definition and a more appropriate name can be provided. So far no one has. "Large" is subjective and cannot be allowed in a category. If the object is to identify places with a majority of Blacks or a majority of Hispanics, we might have the basis of two categories, but a place with 30% blacks and 30% Hispanics has two substantial ethnic minorities, not an ethnic majority.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
comment when I created this category I took the articles from
Category:Demographics of the United States where they will all go back to if this category is deleted--which already had too many disparate articles. I took the list articles that were about populated places having this or that ethnic majority. I did not write those articles and did not define what was considered 'ethnic'--I just took what I found. Other articles were about 'large' populations of certain ethnic groups in populated places. Some articles use 10,000 as the cutoff; some use 100,000; some use other cutoffs. Again, I took whatever list articles there were and put them into this category. No one seems to be complaining about the articles being named with 'large': the contentns of the article define what 'large' is in each case. The lists had and have the common thread of ethnicity in American demographics. Perhaps a better name would be
Category:Lists of U.S. populated places by ethnic group or
Category:Lists of U.S. populated places with minority majorities (here one must remove the 'large' lists from this group)
Hmains (
talk)
04:44, 11 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:procedural close. There's no reason raised against this, but CfD doesn't really approve things like this out of the gate. It's better discussed on a WikiProject page. If you do this, use "movement" rather than "movement." --
Mike Selinker (
talk)
03:11, 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:Native inhibitants of Tamil Nadu
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Clan Macaulay of Lewis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia expand-section box with explanation text
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. This category tracks certain uses of the {{expand-section}} template. The category page states "We will probably remove this logging from the template and delete this category some weeks from now, when we have studied the existing cases out there." That was in March 2009. I don't think this category is really helping anyone anymore. This is the sort of list I would expect to be generated by a bot, and placed on someone's user subpage. — This, that, and the other (talk)06:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete: temporary category to inform discussion on modification of a maintenance template, discussion long since concluded, so category redundant (unless somebody suddenly thinks up some new reason why we desperately need it). HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
On second thoughts -- simply remove the code for this category from the template (needs to be done anyway) & speedy the category once empty. HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:02, 8 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:Dermatology 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.
Nominator's rationale: I started the
WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the
Category:Dermatology subcategories use the term "Dermatologic"; therefore, I am proposing this rename to maintain this convention. At this time, almost all the dermatology subcategories already use the term "Dermatologic". ---
My Core Competency is Competency (
talk)
04:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Was going to support but Andy Walsh gives a good point. Should the other journals also be renamed (hematologic, immunologic, radiologic etc.)? Would there hence need to be a more global discussion on all the other journals? ogy vs ogic? Dermatologic makes sense to me although for some reason I feel I hear dermatology more often. Cheers!
Calaka (
talk)
06:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am reluctant to oppose an expert of whom I think very highly, but it is more important to be consistent with the other journal categories than with the other dermatology categories. With some exceptions, the name of the field is used rather than the adjective: consider the ambiguity of "educational journals" (aren't all journals educational) or "physical journals" (which now usually means those in paper format). The exceptions are usually for very general subjects, such as " medical journals". There are are few which ere equally likely : both "chemistry journal" and "chemical journal". Journals where more than one word is needed are never use the adjective: "internal medical journals"is never used, nor "organic chemical journals".And there's a third form possible in some cases: "botanic journals" is as good as "botanical journal" or "botany journals" I short, I think the present wording is clearer in the absence of evidence for standard use otherwise DGG (
talk )
18:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't take any of this opposition personally; this is what CfD's are for. Having said that, with regard to the other subcategories of
Category:Dermatology, would you also recommend the use of "Dermatology" over "Dermatologic"? If so, given the above consensus, I think those could easily be renamed. ---
My Core Competency is Competency (
talk)
19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose – I agree with DGG's well-argued case that consistency within the large
Category:Medical journals overrides consistency within the local category (and we are not going to change 'Biology journals' to 'Biologic journals', are we?). The terminology within
Category:Dermatology is perhaps best left to dermatologists.
Occuli (
talk)
19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose I see the reasoning for wanting consistency with all the categorized dermatology sub-categories; however, in this instance, I also feel that the consistency should be maintained at the Wikipedia-wide level as is seen with the other journal categories currently present.
CalmerWaters14:27, 10 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:YouTube video producers
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. I am not convinced that category belongs. YouTube does not have producers, does it? I agree that for some individuals, this could be defining. But based on the current contents which includes a lot more then individuals, we have a good example of how this subjective criteria for inclusion will make the current form unmaintainable. If deleted, recreation could be allowed with better inclusion criteria. If kept it needs a new name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep: I don't care what the category is called, but it needs to exist. There are a large number of individuals who obviously belong together in a category because they produce videos on YouTube. —
Lowellian (
reply)
20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Seems like another in a long line of "internet users" categories, like "people who Twitter", "people that use MySpace", "people with 5000 friends on Facebook" etc.
Good Ol’factory(talk)07:41, 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.
Welfare by nation and Public welfare in Puerto Rico
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 main category in line with the usual naming conventions ie "by country" (which I overlooked when adding subcategories by country). And rename subcategory for Puerto Rico to conform to main category. Note that there is no article called
Public welfare in Puerto Rico; it is a redirect.
Hugo999 (
talk)
01:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename both per nom. Note that in American English, "public welfare" is something of a redundancy to begin with; "
welfare reform," "
welfare queen," etc. refer exclusively to public assistance. Private assistance is generally referred to as "charity."-
choster (
talk)
19:46, 8 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.