Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17[edit]

Category:Hospitals with chiropractic departments[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is not clear that having a department of any kind is defining for a hospital. Most hospitals have tens to scores of departments. So if this was allowed we would have an unmanageable list of categories for every hospital. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining and not a good idea to start category clutter based on every service a hospital has. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not a defining characteristic. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Because chiropractic is considered to be in the "alternative medicine" domain by practitioners of Western medicine, most hospitals that have articles on enWP won't have a chiropractic department. However, this doesn't mean that those that do have such a department are defined by such. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not categorize hospitals by the departments they have, but articles on departments by what hospital they are in (assuming there are notable departments of hospitals).John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Having such a department may well be far too common: what next? those with chiropody, gynocology ... I regard this as a performance (speciality) by performer (hospital) category. This may not strictly apply, but the underlying reasons for banning award winners and performance categories certainly apply. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 25 May 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:BisRock[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: upmerge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge eponymous article to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 20:31, 17 May 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:People of American descent[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; as noted, since the parent category is Category:People by ethnic or national descent, the focus on the "American is not an ethnicity" issue is rather moot. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A misleading category that suggests "American" is an ethnicity when in fact it is only a nationality. "Native American" is an ethnic category (and all its tribes such as Cherokee, Algonquin, Iroquois Confederacy, Navajo, etc. represent different ethnicities within the ethnic group), but not simply "American". The United States today is so ethnically diverse and countless people there have no common ethnic background with one another, so one can't really say one is of "American descent" simply because he or she had ancestors who lived in America (unless referring to Native American ancestors). If this category and its subcategories (which can be found in its page) were used to list people of Native American descent, they should be merged into the ______ of Native American descent categories. Otherwise, they should be deleted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep nomination does not understand the category system. To understand categories, one must look around at the subcategories, sibling categories and parent categories. The relevant parent category here is Category:People by ethnic or national descent. Notice the word 'or' in the name. There is nothing whatsoever that is strange or wrong with this category: it is for Americans who have emigrated to other countries. Hmains (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could be merged to "expatriots from United States to ____" if need be, but there is no such thing as "American descent" unless referring to Native American descent. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
here 'of descent' simply means 'ones forefathers were from country X'. I think the shills 'of descent' tree is extremely problematic and needs a major haircut, but we should start a broader, longer discussion about what to do vs piecemeal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would "of _____ ancestry" or "of ______ heritage" be any better? Maybe WP:TNT? If you've got a place to start such a broader conversation, by all means link me to it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep descendants of "non-indigenous" people have lived in the The Americas long enough that many identify themselves as simply "Americans" regardless of their immigrant/citizen/emigrant status; and would likely continue to do so even if the USA became the United States of Canada or the next Panem. If there is a problem, then the ethnic/national/descent diaspora category tree should be reexamined. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a friend who was born in Germany to an American father and a German mother. She was clearly at age 3 a German of American descent. We have lots of articles on people in various other countries who notably have ancestors from the United States. If we are going to scrpa this one, so goes Canadian, Pakistani, and arguably many other nationality cats as well. I am not sure you can argue Brazilian can stand, if American falls. It actually is a very US centric bias to claim "American" is not an ethnicity. Anyone outside the US would argue there are one or more clear ethnic American groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds rather ironic to say that claiming "American" isn't an ethnicity is US-centric. Canadian also is not an ethnicity, and neither is Australian. The only "ethnic Americans" would be Native Americans, and the "ethnic American groups" would be the various Native American tribes like Cherokee and Navajo. Same for Canada. Nationality is separate from ethnicity. Yes, this would mean lots of categories would go, but there are still lots who would stay. Based on Obiwankenobi's words, I suggest WP:TNT on ethnic descent categories if they're as problematic as he seems to suggest. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the current title is ambiguous, considering Amerind descent could also easily be meant by this category. Category:People descended from United States nationals. I would say that all nationals-descent categories should also be so renamed to separate ethnic descent from nationals descent, since many ethnic groups shares names with countries, but many ethnic group traditional homelands are spread across multiple countries, and long term ethnic enclaves outside their home ranges have existed for centuries for some groups. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a contianer category. Here I think that "American" is being used as a synonym of USA. This should perhaps be clarified in a headnote. However, "native American" should be a separate tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 25 May 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.

Vietnamese dynasties[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– To match recent agreed conversion to lower-case 'dynasty'. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:25, 17 May 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_May_17&oldid=1074813591"