Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 10 January 12 >

January 11[edit]

Category:Fictional sexists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: DELETE. -Splash - tk 23:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. A loaded term that is really only categorizable through conjecture about the topics. I also don't really see a reason why we need this category. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted two of them per CSD G7 (requested by Censored Scribe) and categorised the rest. De728631 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd toss in Category:Fictional characters with nuclear abilities as well. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too unclear of a term. This is shown by the fact that opposite positions in Wikipedia discussions have both lead to the holder of that position being called sexist. I have been attacked as being sexist both when I have advocated for keeping women specific categories and when I have advocated getting rid of them. The term is too little defined to be used for categorization anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we don't do bias categories for people, fictional or otherwise.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing not only WP:SMALLCAT, it's a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete simply because it is empty (WP:C1 if empty for longer than 96 consecutive hours). Bwrs (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2014 (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:Accredited Naturopathic medical schools[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: RENAME to Category:Naturopathic medical schools accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education. -Splash - tk 23:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to identify the accrediting organization. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 11 January 2014 (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:Royal Audiences of the Spanish Empire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: RENAME to Category:Real Audiencias. -Splash - tk 23:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Talk:Real Audiencia of Charcas. "Audience" is a translation that entirely fell out of favor by 1900 according to Google ngrams and has basically never been seen since - they're called "Audiencias" in English for the past 110 years. Additionally there were no Audiencias in other empires, so "Spanish Empire" is redundant. "Royal Audiencias" is also reasonable but still not preferred by me; vanilla "Audiencias" is also sort of fine, albeit at minor risk of confusion with the Audiencia Nacional (Spain).

If this category move goes through, I intend to move the other articles in this category - some of which used to be at "Real Audiencia" before being moved to "Royal Audience" - back to "Real Audiencia," as was done with the Real Audiencia of Charcas move above.) SnowFire (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The proposed name implies that the Spanish Empire is the only entity which used Spanish to have Royal Audiences. That no kingdom that was not the Spanish Empire which used Spanish ever had Royal Audiences. This would include such entities as the Empire of Mexico, the various kingdoms of Iberia prior to unification, etc. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Royal Audiencia and Chancillería of Valladolid is currently in this category and existed before the unification of Spain, so yes, those Iberian audiencias are currently included. As for Mexican "real audiencias" I don't know anything about them, but if they did exist, they are considered so insignificant as to not merit a hatnote at the real audiencia article nor a Wikipedia article in general. This isn't surprising, as the first Mexican Empire lasted a mere 2 years, and the Second lasted only 3 while never even controlling large swathes of Mexico. Seems too minor, I highly doubt articles on institutions that would have been short-lived at best, or else renamed to something non "royal" post restoration of the Republic and thus rightfully placed in some other category ("courts of Mexico"), would matter too much. SnowFire (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2014 (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:Mid-level medical practitioners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: DELETE. -Splash - tk 23:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only two pages and no potential for growth. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's a term created by organized medicine to attempt to define non-physician providers as less than a physician. It is a controversial and inaccurate term that has fallen into disfavor amongst many groups and organizations. Similar to another such term: physician extender. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: In what way is it inaccurate? Bwrs (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While PAs practice medicine, NPs do not. They practice nursing. That's one inaccuracy. The other is, "mid" of what? NPs are not in the middle of something. They practice advanced practice nursing. Only physicians and PAs practice medicine.jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to healthcare professions. That may be the same as delete. That category is not so overpopulated as to need splitting, particularly one that will depend on the POV of particular national systems. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG, what is this? I thought it was a quality scaling - something between brilliant and quack, perhaps? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is categorizing two unlike professions together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2014 (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:Congregationalist clergy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nomination. De728631 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, as "minister" is the term used within Congregational churches. See similar precedents for Baptist ministers, Methodist ministers and Presbyterian ministers. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I considered changing "Congregationalist ministers" to the shorter "Congregational ministers", as both are used, but the longer word is somewhat more widely used in Wikipedia articles, and is clearly unambiguous which is desirable for categories. – Fayenatic London 14:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. The "clergy" terminology is inappropriate for a non-conformist church, and "ministers" reflects actual usage. The prefix should be "Congregationalist" to reflect usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree wholeheartedly with the change to "ministers" and use of "Congregationalist." -- Rocketj4 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all -- The formal legal description is minister of religion, whereas Anglican clergy are clerks in holy orders. At least that is the British usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment – by way of comparison, we presently have a category for Catholic priests but not one for Catholic clergy. Bwrs (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2014 (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:Solidarity MSPs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small category unlikely to expand, not clear that Solidarity is properly functioning these days. PatGallacher (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2014 (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:Schweisser albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: KEEP, or follow Jerry's advice.... -Splash - tk 23:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only a single page in this category and since the main article about the band Schweisser is just an unsourced stub, the category is probably not going to be populated anytime soon. De728631 (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Category:Albums by artist which states "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Address the article - the sole occupant is an unsourced near-stub. Determine if the album is notable. If it's not, redirect it to the band's article and then the category can be deleted as empty. If the album is notable the category stays. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. This is categories for discussion, which is is not the place to discuss the notability of articles. What you want is WP:AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I am aware of where I am. I was suggesting a course of action for the nominator or other interested party. Not sure how that was confusing. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jerry, I like your line of thought. So far I've only found a single professional review for Pororoca [1] which is why I have now redirected the album page to the band's article. That leaves us with an empty category. De728631 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_11&oldid=1087820307"