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: 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
Support. Disagree with "hardly anyone uses the term Medical Doctor", that's an American thing where "physician" is popular. Physician is rare, though correct but differently used, in India and Australia, for example (see ref 10 in the
Physician). However, categories should follow the parent article, the parent article is at
Physician. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
There is no right way to resolve these linguistic differences, but I think having the two terms in close conjunction is confusing. It gives the uninitiated the impression that there is supposed to be a distinction. And yes I would like to include related categories. I think the categories which relate to a particular country are fine in adopting local usage, but in the high level ones consistency is more important.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The right way is to follow the parent article. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Note a current (started after, independently) RM seeking to rename the parent article, at
Talk:Physician#Requested_move_25_November_2017. I think this category discussion should go on hold while the article title is discussed. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose -- We have had repeated CFDs on this subject, whose outcome has been to move categories away from "physician". In UK physician is one speciality among hospital doctors. Other specialities are NOT physicians. And the unspecialised ones are GPs, general practitioners.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Physicians is an older title. And it's not true that in the UK Physican is the name of a speciality. Pretty well all doctors in the UK would accept that they are physicians except the surgeons. General practitioners is a speciality in its own right. The large majority of national sub-categories use the term Physician.
Rathfelder (
talk) 18:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose Even in the US the clear common usage is "doctor" or "medical doctor", not physician. People do not in regular speech in the US use the term physician. I have started an attempt to get the misnamed
physician article renamed as well.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment my proposal for change is being opposed on the odd ground that people say "physician" more often then they say "medical doctor", while admitting that everywhere in the world medical doctors are just called "doctor" more than anything else. If there is any need to demonstrate this I would cite examples like this
[1] article. To me trying to insist on keeping the physician category name, when it is ambiguous at best, is just plain wrongheaded.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
"Physician" is less ambiguous than "doctor", and nobody talks about medical doctors.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "Physician" is not commonly used in all countries. "Doctor" is used in all. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)reply
What people say and what they write are two different things. I have only ever heard people in the UK use the words "Medical doctor" when they are talking about the difference between them and PhD type doctors. It is true that "Physician" is not commonly used in all countries, but it has the merit of not being ambiguous.
Rathfelder (
talk) 23:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I would agree that "medical doctor" is not commonly used in the UK. But neither is "physician". That doesn't stop the former being less ambiguous in a British sense than the latter. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Taking in mind the names of the sibling categories (using "physician") and the strong opposition against renaming the article
Physician, this nomination should be supported for consistency.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment In the UK "physician" is a sub-set of "medical doctor". In the United States "medical doctor" and "physician" are synonymous. However in speaking these people are virtually always called doctors. In most writing they are called doctors. In writing about politicians who were medical doctors, the term medical doctor will be used most often. Just to pull a rondom name, the search for Ron Paul and then putting "medical docotr" in quotes gave me 248,000 returns. This does not support the claim by some that "medical doctor" is almost never used. A slightly less written of person, Russell M. Nelson, when I search for "medical doctor" in quotes, gave me 118,000 hits. Medical doctor is clearly a term people use, despite the claims to the contrary in some of these discussions.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Question - The argument about the relative prevalence of "medical doctor" versus "physician" may be appropriate for
Category:Physicians, but is there any reason that this category should be named differently than its parent? --
Black Falcon(
talk) 05:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, because there are lots of editors who are hard headed and ignore the common name rules, so to properly implement them needs to be done in phases.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, that did give me a chuckle, at least; although, I'm not sure you'd prefer editors who are soft in the head. :) A phased approach is perfectly fine if it starts at the top of a category tree and proceeds downward. In this case, however, I don't see how keeping one mid-level category inconsistent with the rest of the tree is helpful. Merry Christmas! --
Black Falcon(
talk) 18:05, 25 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:Articles containing Pushto-language 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 04:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm about to jump on a plane to Elsewhere so have no time to think about this. You might want to make mention of this discussion at
Template talk:Lang so that other editors there know about it and so that I will remember that this discussion exists.—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 11:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed rename.
Jawalpopal (
talk) 18:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
SupportSpeedy 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
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. –
FayenaticLondon 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support. A mess. Delete reference to
apocrypha themes, not well defined, no parent article. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support Deuterocanonical is more precise than apocrypha or Anagignoskomena both of which vary by denomination.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 09:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename -- Target is more precise.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:09, 26 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
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.
Merge to the
Category:Fauna of Cyprus and
Category:Biota of Cyprus categories. I seriously doubt there is very much fauna in one half of this relatively small but divided island that is not also in the other half. Some consideration might be given to renaming all the Biota of Cyprus subcategories as "Foo of Cyprus (island)", but that belongs in a different discussion.
Grutness...wha? 13:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge but not sure of target -- the split of the island will not have altered the fauna/biota. As the Mediterranean only became a sea about 100,000 years ago, I were much doubt there are unique indigenous biota, so that I would expect them to be very similarly to the adjacent Turkey and Lebanon.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - we cannot enforce political opinions in Wikipedia. North Cyprus is a de-facto territory separate from southern
Republic of Cyprus. Fauna in <Foo> typically refers to Foo=country.
GreyShark (
dibra) 07:54, 27 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
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 "correctional" is US English which may not be clear to some readers/editors. The parent category is for prisons. I suggest instead renaming the article. DexDor(talk) 06:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I think Correctional medicine is an unhelpful term. It could be taken to refer to all sorts of other things. I'd prefer to change the article to
Prison healthcare - not medicine. Its the care system, not the medicine, which is different in a prison.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Correction in British English is what a teacher does to his pupils work. It may be we need to rename the main article.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "Corrections" is mostly a North American term for the field. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:25, 29 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
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
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
Delete as superfluous: they are all DC Comics characters anyway. I understand the characters by video game scheme but it's just redundant to saying that Injustice basically includes some variation of virtually every DC character. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per G5. Category created by now blocked sock.
Sro23 (
talk) 07:51, 6 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:Hebrew Bible topics
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.
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
Comment -- Most of the content does belong here, so far is it is articles about biblical subjects, rather than on Biblical books. The items on specific books or chapters may need purging.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:37, 19 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
Support. Sounds good to me. Would need a lot of policing though.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 09:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: please clarify whether you would keep or merge. It sounds as if you support the nominator's alternative i.e. keep but purge, rather than his primary nomination to merge. –
FayenaticLondon 12:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge, as part of
Category:Biblical topics, ensuring that purged articles are kept within the
Category:Hebrew Bible hierarchy except where this is clearly not appropriate. E.g. I just added
The mitzvah of sanctifying the Kohen to two biblical books categories, as the other categories for that page were in Judaism hierarchies but not Bible hierarchies. I do not think that this solution will require heavy policing; the category was probably initially populated before the rest of the current hierarchy was set up. –
FayenaticLondon 12:22, 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.
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: 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
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 but to
Category:British military medical officers. The traditional role was actually called "surgeon", for the very good reason that their main role was to sew up or amputate battlefield casualties.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:British military medical officers. "Medical doctor" is actually very rarely used in Britain (we just say "doctor") and "military medical doctors" just looks odd. "Medical officers" is the common term for these people and yes, all of them had officer (or warrant officer, in the old-fashioned sense, not the modern senior NCO sense) status. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The current options are:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Black Falcon(
talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
(expanding previous vote) Based on Necrothesp's latest comment I have no objection against options 2, 3 or 4, just objections against option 1.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support (4)
Category:British military medical officers. Lament the lack of parent article, parent articles should be required for all categories. The closed parent article appears to be
Defence Medical Services, which doesn't help, except that the head's article (
Surgeon-General (United Kingdom)) appears to defined the term for the core staff collectively as "medical officer". ("The Surgeon-General (SG) is the senior medical officer of the British Armed Forces") --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm quite happy with
Category:British military medical officers. It is agreed that we should local terms for articles based by country. It is quite true that the term Surgeon is used in many countries to refer to doctors of all kinds who work for the military, but for the uninitiated who would not know this it would be very misleading.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Glad you all seem to like my suggestion.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename because of British usage. A quick google search showed 158 million usages of military doctor as opposed to 90 million for military physician. This makes it seem likely that the former is the common usage in all cases.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: Just to be clear, to what new name are you suggesting this category be renamed? Thanks, --
Black Falcon(
talk) 04:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't care if we use "medical officers", "military doctors", "military medical doctors" or "military surgeons", I just know the current term is just plain wrong.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:57, 28 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
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.
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: 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
Support. Disagree with "hardly anyone uses the term Medical Doctor", that's an American thing where "physician" is popular. Physician is rare, though correct but differently used, in India and Australia, for example (see ref 10 in the
Physician). However, categories should follow the parent article, the parent article is at
Physician. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
There is no right way to resolve these linguistic differences, but I think having the two terms in close conjunction is confusing. It gives the uninitiated the impression that there is supposed to be a distinction. And yes I would like to include related categories. I think the categories which relate to a particular country are fine in adopting local usage, but in the high level ones consistency is more important.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The right way is to follow the parent article. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Note a current (started after, independently) RM seeking to rename the parent article, at
Talk:Physician#Requested_move_25_November_2017. I think this category discussion should go on hold while the article title is discussed. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose -- We have had repeated CFDs on this subject, whose outcome has been to move categories away from "physician". In UK physician is one speciality among hospital doctors. Other specialities are NOT physicians. And the unspecialised ones are GPs, general practitioners.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Physicians is an older title. And it's not true that in the UK Physican is the name of a speciality. Pretty well all doctors in the UK would accept that they are physicians except the surgeons. General practitioners is a speciality in its own right. The large majority of national sub-categories use the term Physician.
Rathfelder (
talk) 18:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose Even in the US the clear common usage is "doctor" or "medical doctor", not physician. People do not in regular speech in the US use the term physician. I have started an attempt to get the misnamed
physician article renamed as well.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment my proposal for change is being opposed on the odd ground that people say "physician" more often then they say "medical doctor", while admitting that everywhere in the world medical doctors are just called "doctor" more than anything else. If there is any need to demonstrate this I would cite examples like this
[1] article. To me trying to insist on keeping the physician category name, when it is ambiguous at best, is just plain wrongheaded.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
"Physician" is less ambiguous than "doctor", and nobody talks about medical doctors.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "Physician" is not commonly used in all countries. "Doctor" is used in all. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)reply
What people say and what they write are two different things. I have only ever heard people in the UK use the words "Medical doctor" when they are talking about the difference between them and PhD type doctors. It is true that "Physician" is not commonly used in all countries, but it has the merit of not being ambiguous.
Rathfelder (
talk) 23:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I would agree that "medical doctor" is not commonly used in the UK. But neither is "physician". That doesn't stop the former being less ambiguous in a British sense than the latter. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Taking in mind the names of the sibling categories (using "physician") and the strong opposition against renaming the article
Physician, this nomination should be supported for consistency.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment In the UK "physician" is a sub-set of "medical doctor". In the United States "medical doctor" and "physician" are synonymous. However in speaking these people are virtually always called doctors. In most writing they are called doctors. In writing about politicians who were medical doctors, the term medical doctor will be used most often. Just to pull a rondom name, the search for Ron Paul and then putting "medical docotr" in quotes gave me 248,000 returns. This does not support the claim by some that "medical doctor" is almost never used. A slightly less written of person, Russell M. Nelson, when I search for "medical doctor" in quotes, gave me 118,000 hits. Medical doctor is clearly a term people use, despite the claims to the contrary in some of these discussions.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Question - The argument about the relative prevalence of "medical doctor" versus "physician" may be appropriate for
Category:Physicians, but is there any reason that this category should be named differently than its parent? --
Black Falcon(
talk) 05:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, because there are lots of editors who are hard headed and ignore the common name rules, so to properly implement them needs to be done in phases.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, that did give me a chuckle, at least; although, I'm not sure you'd prefer editors who are soft in the head. :) A phased approach is perfectly fine if it starts at the top of a category tree and proceeds downward. In this case, however, I don't see how keeping one mid-level category inconsistent with the rest of the tree is helpful. Merry Christmas! --
Black Falcon(
talk) 18:05, 25 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:Articles containing Pushto-language 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 04:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm about to jump on a plane to Elsewhere so have no time to think about this. You might want to make mention of this discussion at
Template talk:Lang so that other editors there know about it and so that I will remember that this discussion exists.—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 11:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed rename.
Jawalpopal (
talk) 18:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
SupportSpeedy 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
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. –
FayenaticLondon 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support. A mess. Delete reference to
apocrypha themes, not well defined, no parent article. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support Deuterocanonical is more precise than apocrypha or Anagignoskomena both of which vary by denomination.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 09:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename -- Target is more precise.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:09, 26 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
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.
Merge to the
Category:Fauna of Cyprus and
Category:Biota of Cyprus categories. I seriously doubt there is very much fauna in one half of this relatively small but divided island that is not also in the other half. Some consideration might be given to renaming all the Biota of Cyprus subcategories as "Foo of Cyprus (island)", but that belongs in a different discussion.
Grutness...wha? 13:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge but not sure of target -- the split of the island will not have altered the fauna/biota. As the Mediterranean only became a sea about 100,000 years ago, I were much doubt there are unique indigenous biota, so that I would expect them to be very similarly to the adjacent Turkey and Lebanon.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - we cannot enforce political opinions in Wikipedia. North Cyprus is a de-facto territory separate from southern
Republic of Cyprus. Fauna in <Foo> typically refers to Foo=country.
GreyShark (
dibra) 07:54, 27 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
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 "correctional" is US English which may not be clear to some readers/editors. The parent category is for prisons. I suggest instead renaming the article. DexDor(talk) 06:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I think Correctional medicine is an unhelpful term. It could be taken to refer to all sorts of other things. I'd prefer to change the article to
Prison healthcare - not medicine. Its the care system, not the medicine, which is different in a prison.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Correction in British English is what a teacher does to his pupils work. It may be we need to rename the main article.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "Corrections" is mostly a North American term for the field. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:25, 29 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
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
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
Delete as superfluous: they are all DC Comics characters anyway. I understand the characters by video game scheme but it's just redundant to saying that Injustice basically includes some variation of virtually every DC character. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per G5. Category created by now blocked sock.
Sro23 (
talk) 07:51, 6 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:Hebrew Bible topics
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.
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
Comment -- Most of the content does belong here, so far is it is articles about biblical subjects, rather than on Biblical books. The items on specific books or chapters may need purging.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:37, 19 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
Support. Sounds good to me. Would need a lot of policing though.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 09:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: please clarify whether you would keep or merge. It sounds as if you support the nominator's alternative i.e. keep but purge, rather than his primary nomination to merge. –
FayenaticLondon 12:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge, as part of
Category:Biblical topics, ensuring that purged articles are kept within the
Category:Hebrew Bible hierarchy except where this is clearly not appropriate. E.g. I just added
The mitzvah of sanctifying the Kohen to two biblical books categories, as the other categories for that page were in Judaism hierarchies but not Bible hierarchies. I do not think that this solution will require heavy policing; the category was probably initially populated before the rest of the current hierarchy was set up. –
FayenaticLondon 12:22, 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.
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: 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
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 but to
Category:British military medical officers. The traditional role was actually called "surgeon", for the very good reason that their main role was to sew up or amputate battlefield casualties.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:British military medical officers. "Medical doctor" is actually very rarely used in Britain (we just say "doctor") and "military medical doctors" just looks odd. "Medical officers" is the common term for these people and yes, all of them had officer (or warrant officer, in the old-fashioned sense, not the modern senior NCO sense) status. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The current options are:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Black Falcon(
talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
(expanding previous vote) Based on Necrothesp's latest comment I have no objection against options 2, 3 or 4, just objections against option 1.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support (4)
Category:British military medical officers. Lament the lack of parent article, parent articles should be required for all categories. The closed parent article appears to be
Defence Medical Services, which doesn't help, except that the head's article (
Surgeon-General (United Kingdom)) appears to defined the term for the core staff collectively as "medical officer". ("The Surgeon-General (SG) is the senior medical officer of the British Armed Forces") --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm quite happy with
Category:British military medical officers. It is agreed that we should local terms for articles based by country. It is quite true that the term Surgeon is used in many countries to refer to doctors of all kinds who work for the military, but for the uninitiated who would not know this it would be very misleading.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Glad you all seem to like my suggestion.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename because of British usage. A quick google search showed 158 million usages of military doctor as opposed to 90 million for military physician. This makes it seem likely that the former is the common usage in all cases.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: Just to be clear, to what new name are you suggesting this category be renamed? Thanks, --
Black Falcon(
talk) 04:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't care if we use "medical officers", "military doctors", "military medical doctors" or "military surgeons", I just know the current term is just plain wrong.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:57, 28 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
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.