Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2 November 4 >

November 3

Category:American primary care 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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ℯ xplicit 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I became aware of this category when it was applied to John Britton (doctor) to replace Category:American physicians, but I see it's also applied to articles like Henry L. Brown (the first one I happened to click on) and to a number of others for whom the idea of a separate field of primary care (or general practice, family medicine) would be ahistorical. Basically, trying to apply this category consistently would be, at the very least, difficult: it would either involve deciding what constituted "primary care" before this became a specialization, or omitting historic physicians performing what today might be called primary care. Too subjective. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Questions: isn't this a matter of moving biographies back to Category:American physicians if they don't belong here? And if the category is kept, should we specify a period in the header of the category page? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Re "isn't this about moving them", the idea is an upmerge so that they would all be moved back. I think that there's too much potential for subjectivity if the category is kept, because it would inevitably either be full of people who practiced before the specialization existed and/or who practiced after but aren't described as such in sources, but that we put in there via our own judgment (and therefore subjective), OR it would be a smaller category containing people doing pretty much exactly the same thing as people who aren't in the category (and therefore be difficult to use and somewhat arbitrary). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. "Primary care physician" isn't a type of doctor, but a role within a medical institution or insurance system.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I think its important to keep a category which distinguishes generalist from specialists. In much of the world this is called General Practice, but this is not used so widely in the USA. Category:American physicians applies pretty well universally. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Rathfelder: I think that the argument for changing that note is stronger than the argument for diffusing. What's apparent is that we simply can't confirm that most of these people are "primary care physicians" or "general practitioners", so the broader category is the only appropriate place. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • That is not an argument about the existence of the category. That's a question of which articles belong in it. There are large number of articles about American doctors which clearly say that they are General Practitioners, Primary care physicians or Family Physicians. These categories are very similar, though the name used varies and they should be merged. But they are clearly differentiated from the generic term "Physician" which simply indicates that they are qualified and practice as what is called a doctor in much of the world. Most of the articles about doctors which elaborate on the subject's practice as a doctor (and many don't) are about specialists, because those are the doctors who do most research. But it would be a big mistake to lose the category for generalists - who, after all, see most of the patients most of the time. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • But that is the argument I'm making. Most of the articles in "American physicians" cannot be diffused into "American primary care physicians", and any diffusion we can try to do will be arbitrary or subjective in one way or another. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I looked in quite a few articles and on the one hand many of these physicians are/were indeed occupied as "generalist physicians" (a term that I'm making up now), but on the other hand there is no consistent term that would specifically indicate their generalism. If kept, the category name should become more descriptive. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • In other countries they are called General Practitioners. That term is used in a few of the American articles. I'd be happy with a category American General Practitioners, but I am not sure it would be acceptable. Rathfelder ( talk) 11:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Its quite true that the application of categories to doctors varies with time. Before about 1920 most doctors would try their hand at anything, but now doctors, at least in developed countries and urban areas are restricted to an area of practice. Most of the articles about nineteenth century US doctors don't say very much about what exactly they did. Something along the lines of "he moved to Clarksville and practiced medicine" is very common, especially for people who are actually notable for being a politician or sportsman. I don't think those articles should be categorised as primary care physicians. I've mostly put them in a subcategory of Category:American physicians by state. But the article about Henry L. Brown says he "started his own practice in Laurel" - That seems to suggest it was not in a hospital, though it doesn't tell us anything more. Rathfelder ( talk) 11:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • However, this category is populated mostly with 20th-century physicians and the articles aren't very clear either. By lack of clear terminology you have to read between the lines to understand that these physicians aren't/weren't active in a particular specialization. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I think that certainly by the middle of the 20th-century physicians were either specialists - where you would expect the biography to say so - or generalists. What generalists actually did clearly varies from place to place, and quite a lot of the people I take to be US general practitioners clearly delivered babies and performed abortions, something that is certainly not normal in the UK now. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think that an upmerge to American physicians is not appropriate, because that category should be at least partially diffused. That said, "General Practitioner" was a commonly-used term in the US until fairly recently (not sure when, but 21st century, I think), when it was replaced by "Primary care physician." And yes, Rathfelder it may be TMI, but my own child was delivered by a General Practitioner (back in the 1980s). Maybe the solution is to create a Category:American general practitioners for those who were so defined as such at the time, and keep this one just for articles on modern people so defined as primary care physicians now. Montanabw (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

That would be OK by me, certainly better than the proposed upmerge, though I'm not sure that we can really distinguish between "General Practitioner", "Primary care physician" and "Family physicians", as they seem to share important characteristics: Not hospital based and not specialised, which differentiate them from all the other sorts of physicians. However the demarcation lines clearly vary from place to place and from time to time. In the UK, for example GPs no longer deliver babies because their insurance doesn't cover them. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:14, 14 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:Catholic traditionalism

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Compare " Irish American". " Irish" is the 'accidental', " American" is the 'essential'. This wording seems just as supported by general sources check, and is per WP:Consistency in accordance with main relevant equivalent language versions. It is also consistent with wording order in Traditionalist Catholicism, Template:Traditionalist Catholicism, as well as in equivalence with Liberal Catholicism. Furthermore, need of this renaming is indicated by Category:Traditionalist Catholics, and Category:Traditionalist Catholic newspapers and magazines. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:42, 3 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:French compound given names

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 and delete as nominated. ℯ xplicit 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category:Compound given names does not have enough names in it to diffuse by nationality, and especially by both nationality and gender. Since compound given names are historically a French tradition, most pages in Category:Compound given names would be French anyway. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:51, 3 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:CD singles

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 Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The CD single was the primary format for singles during the 1990s and early 2000s (and many still are today) so the release of singles on CD is not a defining characteristic for such songs any more than singles from the 50s through the early 80s being released on 7" inch vinyl discs or songs of today being distributed via digital outlets through downloads and streaming. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose: The CD single is a rare format today, but in some countries such as Japan, Germany, France and Australia people still have this format for major releases. The CD single also helps a song hit the record charts. I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's point that the main format of music distribution today is via digital outlets, but this is the reason why I created this category. The most common format of releasing a single is through the digital download/streaming, but some singles in Germany, for example, get a CD release after they achieve certain success on the charts. So, this would be a means of organizing these singles that get this distinction from others. Lucas RdS ( talk) 03:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Support We have managed without vinyl, rps, 7, 10 or 12 inch. I am sure such potentially enormous category will not prove useful or encyclopedic. Or as I often cry here, "What about the songs, doesn't anybody care about the songs?" -- Richhoncho ( talk) 13:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Within the period of time from when CD singles supplanted 45s and cassette singles as the standard form of single distribution to the time they themselves got supplanted by iTunes, every single released will have been in the CD-single format as an automatic outgrowth of the fact that they were released as a single at all. So it's not a useful point of categorization — it would be an unbrowsable megacategory that comprised every song released during that time period. It's simply not useful to categorize music by what physical or digital media were or weren't used to sell it on — it doesn't constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the music, any more than books would be usefully defined by whether they were hardcover or paperback (especially since somewhere between many and most books get published as both at different points in their lifecycles.) Bearcat ( talk) 22:36, 14 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:Michael Lisicky

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: After removing pages inappropriately categorized here (stores written about by the subject), there is nothing left. — swpb T go beyond 17:24, 3 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia pages tagged for copyright problems. ℯ xplicit 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Why only articles? It's not uncommon to see pages outside article space listed at WP:CP. Adam9007 ( talk) 17:09, 3 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:Trouble Shooting

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Intended content is unclear. — swpb T go beyond 16:52, 3 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.

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.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, enormously complicated category tree for a small-medium town with some 50 biography articles (which allows some diffusion) and a dozen buildings and structures (which presumably should become a single category) and not much else. Some categories, like Category:Neighborhoods in Braintree, Massachusetts, only contain redirects to the Braintree, Massachusetts article. Probably we can even merge further, but let's first wait and see how the category looks like after the above mergers. This nomination is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:56, 3 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:People educated at Atlantic College

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Awkward wording not used on other articles. TM 09:58, 3 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:People educated at a United World College

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There is no clear support to rename the category one way or the other. ℯ xplicit 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Awkward phrasing. I understand there are more than one United World College but I "educated at" is not used elsewhere to my knowledge. TM 09:56, 3 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:Fahrenheit 451

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18#Category:Fahrenheit 451. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only navigates three articles other the the main one. Upmerge where appropriate (e.g. main article can go directly into Category:Dystopian novels). ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:41, 3 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_3&oldid=1138411429"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2 November 4 >

November 3

Category:American primary care 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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ℯ xplicit 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I became aware of this category when it was applied to John Britton (doctor) to replace Category:American physicians, but I see it's also applied to articles like Henry L. Brown (the first one I happened to click on) and to a number of others for whom the idea of a separate field of primary care (or general practice, family medicine) would be ahistorical. Basically, trying to apply this category consistently would be, at the very least, difficult: it would either involve deciding what constituted "primary care" before this became a specialization, or omitting historic physicians performing what today might be called primary care. Too subjective. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Questions: isn't this a matter of moving biographies back to Category:American physicians if they don't belong here? And if the category is kept, should we specify a period in the header of the category page? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Re "isn't this about moving them", the idea is an upmerge so that they would all be moved back. I think that there's too much potential for subjectivity if the category is kept, because it would inevitably either be full of people who practiced before the specialization existed and/or who practiced after but aren't described as such in sources, but that we put in there via our own judgment (and therefore subjective), OR it would be a smaller category containing people doing pretty much exactly the same thing as people who aren't in the category (and therefore be difficult to use and somewhat arbitrary). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. "Primary care physician" isn't a type of doctor, but a role within a medical institution or insurance system.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I think its important to keep a category which distinguishes generalist from specialists. In much of the world this is called General Practice, but this is not used so widely in the USA. Category:American physicians applies pretty well universally. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Rathfelder: I think that the argument for changing that note is stronger than the argument for diffusing. What's apparent is that we simply can't confirm that most of these people are "primary care physicians" or "general practitioners", so the broader category is the only appropriate place. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • That is not an argument about the existence of the category. That's a question of which articles belong in it. There are large number of articles about American doctors which clearly say that they are General Practitioners, Primary care physicians or Family Physicians. These categories are very similar, though the name used varies and they should be merged. But they are clearly differentiated from the generic term "Physician" which simply indicates that they are qualified and practice as what is called a doctor in much of the world. Most of the articles about doctors which elaborate on the subject's practice as a doctor (and many don't) are about specialists, because those are the doctors who do most research. But it would be a big mistake to lose the category for generalists - who, after all, see most of the patients most of the time. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • But that is the argument I'm making. Most of the articles in "American physicians" cannot be diffused into "American primary care physicians", and any diffusion we can try to do will be arbitrary or subjective in one way or another. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I looked in quite a few articles and on the one hand many of these physicians are/were indeed occupied as "generalist physicians" (a term that I'm making up now), but on the other hand there is no consistent term that would specifically indicate their generalism. If kept, the category name should become more descriptive. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • In other countries they are called General Practitioners. That term is used in a few of the American articles. I'd be happy with a category American General Practitioners, but I am not sure it would be acceptable. Rathfelder ( talk) 11:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Its quite true that the application of categories to doctors varies with time. Before about 1920 most doctors would try their hand at anything, but now doctors, at least in developed countries and urban areas are restricted to an area of practice. Most of the articles about nineteenth century US doctors don't say very much about what exactly they did. Something along the lines of "he moved to Clarksville and practiced medicine" is very common, especially for people who are actually notable for being a politician or sportsman. I don't think those articles should be categorised as primary care physicians. I've mostly put them in a subcategory of Category:American physicians by state. But the article about Henry L. Brown says he "started his own practice in Laurel" - That seems to suggest it was not in a hospital, though it doesn't tell us anything more. Rathfelder ( talk) 11:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • However, this category is populated mostly with 20th-century physicians and the articles aren't very clear either. By lack of clear terminology you have to read between the lines to understand that these physicians aren't/weren't active in a particular specialization. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I think that certainly by the middle of the 20th-century physicians were either specialists - where you would expect the biography to say so - or generalists. What generalists actually did clearly varies from place to place, and quite a lot of the people I take to be US general practitioners clearly delivered babies and performed abortions, something that is certainly not normal in the UK now. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think that an upmerge to American physicians is not appropriate, because that category should be at least partially diffused. That said, "General Practitioner" was a commonly-used term in the US until fairly recently (not sure when, but 21st century, I think), when it was replaced by "Primary care physician." And yes, Rathfelder it may be TMI, but my own child was delivered by a General Practitioner (back in the 1980s). Maybe the solution is to create a Category:American general practitioners for those who were so defined as such at the time, and keep this one just for articles on modern people so defined as primary care physicians now. Montanabw (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

That would be OK by me, certainly better than the proposed upmerge, though I'm not sure that we can really distinguish between "General Practitioner", "Primary care physician" and "Family physicians", as they seem to share important characteristics: Not hospital based and not specialised, which differentiate them from all the other sorts of physicians. However the demarcation lines clearly vary from place to place and from time to time. In the UK, for example GPs no longer deliver babies because their insurance doesn't cover them. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:14, 14 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:Catholic traditionalism

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Compare " Irish American". " Irish" is the 'accidental', " American" is the 'essential'. This wording seems just as supported by general sources check, and is per WP:Consistency in accordance with main relevant equivalent language versions. It is also consistent with wording order in Traditionalist Catholicism, Template:Traditionalist Catholicism, as well as in equivalence with Liberal Catholicism. Furthermore, need of this renaming is indicated by Category:Traditionalist Catholics, and Category:Traditionalist Catholic newspapers and magazines. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:42, 3 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:French compound given names

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 and delete as nominated. ℯ xplicit 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category:Compound given names does not have enough names in it to diffuse by nationality, and especially by both nationality and gender. Since compound given names are historically a French tradition, most pages in Category:Compound given names would be French anyway. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:51, 3 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:CD singles

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 Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The CD single was the primary format for singles during the 1990s and early 2000s (and many still are today) so the release of singles on CD is not a defining characteristic for such songs any more than singles from the 50s through the early 80s being released on 7" inch vinyl discs or songs of today being distributed via digital outlets through downloads and streaming. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose: The CD single is a rare format today, but in some countries such as Japan, Germany, France and Australia people still have this format for major releases. The CD single also helps a song hit the record charts. I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's point that the main format of music distribution today is via digital outlets, but this is the reason why I created this category. The most common format of releasing a single is through the digital download/streaming, but some singles in Germany, for example, get a CD release after they achieve certain success on the charts. So, this would be a means of organizing these singles that get this distinction from others. Lucas RdS ( talk) 03:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Support We have managed without vinyl, rps, 7, 10 or 12 inch. I am sure such potentially enormous category will not prove useful or encyclopedic. Or as I often cry here, "What about the songs, doesn't anybody care about the songs?" -- Richhoncho ( talk) 13:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Within the period of time from when CD singles supplanted 45s and cassette singles as the standard form of single distribution to the time they themselves got supplanted by iTunes, every single released will have been in the CD-single format as an automatic outgrowth of the fact that they were released as a single at all. So it's not a useful point of categorization — it would be an unbrowsable megacategory that comprised every song released during that time period. It's simply not useful to categorize music by what physical or digital media were or weren't used to sell it on — it doesn't constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the music, any more than books would be usefully defined by whether they were hardcover or paperback (especially since somewhere between many and most books get published as both at different points in their lifecycles.) Bearcat ( talk) 22:36, 14 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:Michael Lisicky

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: After removing pages inappropriately categorized here (stores written about by the subject), there is nothing left. — swpb T go beyond 17:24, 3 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia pages tagged for copyright problems. ℯ xplicit 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Why only articles? It's not uncommon to see pages outside article space listed at WP:CP. Adam9007 ( talk) 17:09, 3 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:Trouble Shooting

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Intended content is unclear. — swpb T go beyond 16:52, 3 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.

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.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, enormously complicated category tree for a small-medium town with some 50 biography articles (which allows some diffusion) and a dozen buildings and structures (which presumably should become a single category) and not much else. Some categories, like Category:Neighborhoods in Braintree, Massachusetts, only contain redirects to the Braintree, Massachusetts article. Probably we can even merge further, but let's first wait and see how the category looks like after the above mergers. This nomination is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:56, 3 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:People educated at Atlantic College

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Awkward wording not used on other articles. TM 09:58, 3 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:People educated at a United World College

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There is no clear support to rename the category one way or the other. ℯ xplicit 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Awkward phrasing. I understand there are more than one United World College but I "educated at" is not used elsewhere to my knowledge. TM 09:56, 3 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:Fahrenheit 451

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18#Category:Fahrenheit 451. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only navigates three articles other the the main one. Upmerge where appropriate (e.g. main article can go directly into Category:Dystopian novels). ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:41, 3 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_3&oldid=1138411429"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE