Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

November 24[edit]

Category:Medical doctors by specialty[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Category:Medical_doctors_by_specialty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Rename per nom, given Medical doctor redirects to Physician. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:53, 25 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]
  • Comments – I certainly use the term 'medical doctor' and not the term physician. We should also address Category:Doctors (which is ambiguous - I am a doctor but not a medical one). There is no Category:Medical doctors, which supports the nom. However Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_31#Category:Saudi_Arabian_medical_doctors shows support for changing 'physicians' to 'medical doctors' throughout. Oculi (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Doctors was merged into 'Physicians' at cfd in 2005. Oculi (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I converted Category:Doctors into a disambiguation page and moved its contents to Category:Physicians. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:03, 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[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: merge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. Jawalpopal (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Speedy 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[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. – Fayenatic London 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to a more accurate category name, all of this depicts people in the Deuterocanonical books, namely in the book of Judith, the additions to Daniel, the book of Tobit and 2 Maccabees. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 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:Fauna of Northern Cyprus[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: merge to Category:Fauna of Cyprus and delete the parent (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING (e.g. of Lesser white-toothed shrew). Very incomplete (e.g. see List of mammals of Northern Cyprus). DexDor (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 to the Category:Fauna of Cyprus and Category:Biota of Cyprus. These are all species living in the same island, regardless of which country or countries hold the island. Dimadick (talk) 11:36, 26 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[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 (non-admin closure). Based on this discussion it is probably a good idea to follow up on User:DexDor's suggestion to have the article renamed. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was recently discussed at CfD, but I just realized that Correctional medicine appears to be the main article for this topic category. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:46, 24 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[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. ℯxplicit 04:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non-defining category, possibly created by sock of blocked User:Musicbyac or User:CensoredScribe ‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 09:49, 14 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) 03:47, 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[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 but purge. Pinging the partipants to do the purging: @Marcocapelle, Laurel Lodged, Fayenatic london, and Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the category is used as a WP:OCMISC category. There are at least three types of articles in it:
  1. articles about Hebrew Bible history, language and study, for example Council of Jamnia and Babylonian vocalization
  2. articles that belong in and are already in a specific Hebrew Bible book category, e.g. Generations of Noah is already in Category:Book of Genesis and Isaiah 42 is already in Category:Book of Isaiah
  3. a few articles for which this category was probably originally intended, e.g. List of capital crimes in the Torah and Women in the Hebrew Bible
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. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Keep but purge Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:25, 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. – Fayenatic London 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.

Category:Okaasan to Issho[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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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[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:British military medical officers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with the British medical categories Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current options are:
  1. Status quo (Category:British military physicians), consistent with nearly all of Category:Military physicians by nationality;
  2. Category:British military doctors, consistent with Category:Irish military doctors;
  3. Category:British military medical doctors, consistent with Category:British medical doctors; and
  4. Category:British military medical officers.
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]
    Got it, thanks. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:07, 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]
  • Rename to Category:British military medical officers, per the (rough) consensus above. Oculi (talk) 18:50, 15 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_24&oldid=1083677784"