Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25 November 27 >

November 26[edit]

Category:Physicians by nationality[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Physicians by nationality to Category:Medical doctors by nationality
  • Nominator's rationale the latter is more in line with common usage. I would also say this structure has an absurd number of one entry categories for particular specialists at the national level that we should not have. When we only have 10 articles on medical doctors from a given country, there is no reason to subdivide the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nobody uses the term Medical Doctor. They use the term Doctor, and we can't use that in this context because it's ambiguous.Rathfelder (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is intended to leave all the existing categories of Fooian Physicians and Physicians from Foo then I would oppose this. We should have consistent approach to the high level categories or editors will be confused. Within individual countries we can cope with local linguistic variation.Rathfelder (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (1) They hold the degree of MD - Doctor of Medicine. (2) A physician (except in USA) is a hospital speciality. In USA, it seems to be a synonym for what I call a General Practitioner. Including the word "medical" is necessary to ensure that those (like me) with a PhD are not included. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not true that a physician is a hospital speciality. The term physician is much older and is used in different ways in different contexts. Many doctors do not hold a degree of Doctor of Medicine. The practice of medicine varies a great deal from time to time and place to place. Physician seems the most widely acceptable term and we have an immense category tree using it. Consistency is valuable in this context and should not easily be sacrificed. Rathfelder (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1-Physician is not accepted at all as a term that is synonymous with Medical doctor in the UK, or in other countries that use commonwealth English. In those countries physician is a specific sub-set of those who practice medicine. In the United States physician is generally thought to be a synonym of medical doctor. The question seems to boil down to "is medical doctor a widely used term." To begin with, everywhere these people are virtually always called doctors. A medical doctor does not have to have an MD, they are any person who practices medicine, be they an MD or OD, and possibly even podiatriests and maybe certain oral surgeons, but not dentists. How exactly to draw the spread of the term historically, for example do more herbalist type medical doctors like Willard Richards come under this term? The main point is that 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, who has never been a politician but is more known as a religious leader than medical doctor (although he probably would pass notability requirements for his role as a medical doctor, although people might have to dig much deeper into the sources than has been done to demonstate this) 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. We should seek a term that is the most workable and understandable in a broad international context, and medical doctor is clearly that term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of these words varies from place to place and from time to time. If you want to alter the words used for individual countries you might have more success. It's apparent that your proposal to change the main category does not have much support. Rathfelder (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand you are the only person in opposition, and your opposition is based on the false assertion that "nobody uses the term medical doctor." I have shown by searches that in fact it gets uses hundreds of thousands of times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opposition is based on the fact that we have a whole scheme based on Physician. As far as possible the category system should be consistent. I dont want Category:Physicians by nationality to be different from all the other hundreds of categories for doctors. It's well established that the category system should be based, where possible, on the articles. And your searches for "Medical doctor" are based on literature. I have been working in the British health system for 30 years. Nobody ever refers to medical doctors unless they want to distinguish them from PhD doctors. I've just been through several thousand Wikipedia articles about doctors, and I doubt if as many as 1% use the term "medical doctor". The article about Ron Paul starts "Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American author, physician, ...." If you want to make a case based on usage in a particular country I would happily support that. Rathfelder (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for consistency reasons, many category names contain Physician and the article is named Physician too. Note that an RM for the article has recently been rejected. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: recent requested move on this exact thing failed. Neutralitytalk 16:46, 17 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:Tunisian 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: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Tunisian military physicians to Category:Military physicians (which is nominated for rename, but that is a different issue). The category here has only one entry, no reason to keep a one entry by nationality category. The one article is already in another subcat of Category:Tunisian cardiologists, so there is no reason to upmerge to the general Turkish physicians cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose the idea that people from smaller countries should not be properly categorised subverts the fundamental principle of a hierarchical category system. It devalues the articles, because people looking for, in this case, military physicians, will not find any of the people from small countries. And if we are not allowed such categories we will never know how many articles there are in them. Rathfelder (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, there are only a total of 10 articles in Category:Tunisian physicians. This is not a number where splitting the category by speciality makes sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without objection to recreation when there are quite a few articles about Tunisian military physicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would we know how many Tunisian military physicians there are if there is no category for them? Is it proposed to abolish all the other categories in Category:Tunisian people by occupation? There are many with only one article. Rathfelder (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody looking at Category:Military physicians will know that any of them are Tunisian - or from any other small country - if we follow this logic. Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody will ever know more about any article in any category unless by reading the article. That is just inherent to using categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Part of an existing category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full upmerge -- This is the usual solution to small categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this particular category picked on for abolition? There are many hundreds of categories with only one entry, and this is part of a well established category tree. There may well be relevent articles to be added. Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just hope that after deletion of the Tunisian subcat, some 30 to 40 more siblings will be nominated. But you are right that procedurally this is not the best way, it would have been better if all 30-40 would have been nominated from the start. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are all the categories relating to small countries no longer to be subcategorised in line with the schemes that apply to large countries? Or does this only apply to doctors? Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The former. In the discussions it looks like, officially, we only have categories not diffused by country and categories fully diffused by country. In practice we have many categories that are semi-diffused by country and I really don't see why there would be anything wrong with that. In many cases having just an American, British, Canadian, Australian and Irish subcategory may suffice. Just to avoid misunderstandings, I personally don't have any of the before mentioned nationalities. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is what you intend it requires a much wider discussion than that related to this individual category, as it appears to me to subvert the fundamental policies of Wikipedia:CATEGORY. It is completely inappropriate to undermine the policies of the encyclopedia in this way. Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no subversion at all, on the contrary WP:CAT says "It is possible for a category to be only partially diffused—some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category." Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it is possible. But what is gained by doing so? And your expressed intention, as I understand it is that all the categories relating to small countries should no longer to be subcategorised in line with the schemes that apply to large countries.Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be more precise, this is about the combination of small trees and small countries. The advantage of upmerging, so when this article is in both Category:Military physicians and Category:Tunisian physicians is that a reader will be able to scroll easier from this article to similar articles, so depending on the reader's interest either to other articles about military physicians or to other articles about Tunisian physicians. And that is exactly the purpose of categories, to find (a reasonable amount of) related articles easily. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone looking for Tunisian Military Physicians will have a harder job. I cant see how it makes it easier for people looking for military physicians or Tunisian physicians. And why pick on this particular category? There are thousands of categories with only one entry. There are more than a thousand articles in Category:Military physicians by nationality. Sadly there are not many articles about Tunisian people, but it doesn't help to erode the categorisation of them. There is no policy suggesting that a combination of small trees and small countries should affect categorisation. Quite the opposite. When we have a large categorisation scheme it is the policy to extend it into small categories. If you don't like that you should argue for a change of policy.Rathfelder (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more ambiguous than that, the policy is on the one hand that we don't fully diffuse (as quoted before) and on the other hand, once fully diffused we don't single out a one or a few subcats that are too small. As mentioned earlier, this nomination on its own isn't how it should be done, better have it done for 30 or 40 subcats simultaneously.
Apart from that, you have to realize that readers don't know category trees by heart. If they use categories, they will just ask themselves, "what else is there in Wikipedia", they look at the categories and when they see that there is Category:Tunisian physicians and Category:Military physicians they will not miss Tunisian military physicians when it is not there. By seeing Category:Tunisian physicians and Category:Military physicians they will naturally understand that the WP coverage of Tunisian military physicians is very poor and so, if they are interested in reading related biographies, they should accept that the most related biographies are either not military or not Tunisian. That is just how it is. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most people will start from an article. Then they may use the categories to find similar articles. Combined categories like this one makes that easier. If you don't like it then I still think you are subverting the policy and you should raise your objections in a bigger forum. As you have conceded it makes no sense to pick on this one category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:43, 10 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:Rhodesian 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:Rhodesian military medical officers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 9 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:Swedish 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: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is pretty obvious that in small countries we shouldn't have subcategories with a very narrow scope. Small countries are served better with broader-defined categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is to decide what is a very narrow scope? Have you any idea how many articles about military physicians there are? Rathfelder (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assume we will only find appropriate articles in the parent category. That is not true.Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is possible that more articles can be found in grandparent, aunt and niece categories. But in many cases, if the parents hardly contain any applicable articles then it becomes very unlikely that the new category can decently be populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are now 4 articles in the category. Is that enough for it to survive? Rathfelder (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What counts as a "military physician"? I searched the Swedish National Dictionary of Biography (Svenskt biografiskt lexikon)[1] for a few relevant terms and found some 60 or more physicians (most of whom do not yet have an article in the English Wikipedia) who at some point held military appointments. I suspect that a wider search would find even more potential category members. In the case of most of these individuals, their military service is not what they are known for, and some are best known for what they did outside the medical field entirely. OTOH, Wikipedia tends to categorize according to every valid criterion, so according to that principle these would all qualify. --Hegvald (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Part of an existing category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate -- Four articles and the possibility of over 50 more, if someone will translate the Swedish biogr-dictionary os enough to keep. My Swedish dictionary suggests that the Swedish is läkare, literally healer, which is translated as doctor or physician. Since it is in Europe, perhaps the British "doctor" is more appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Sweden, a research doctorate in medicine is a med. dr or MD, which is distinct from the läkarexamen, the professional degree for a physician (and can be held by a non-physician who gets a doctorate in a medical field). It is probably better to use "physician" to make a distinction between these things. (Britain is special in some ways -- as are its major constituent parts each on their own -- and using British terminology as a key to everything European may not work.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that's exactly the same as in Britain! MD is a prestigious research degree held by very few individuals. Most 'doctors' do not actually hold doctorates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The American usage is 100% doctor. Implications that it is otherwise come from people who are way into supposed precision of language and ignore common name rules. I have always said that my uncle is a doctor, or medical doctor, I have never in my life used that odd p word to refer to him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 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:Soviet 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: moot. Category:Soviet military physicians has been depopulated out-of-process. The articles are now in Category:Soviet military doctors. I will redirect Category:Soviet military physicians to Category:Soviet military doctors, w/o prejudice to any further nominations anyone may want to make. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Soviet military physicians to Category:Soviet military doctors
  • Nominator's rationale It is generally recognized that doctor is the most common way to refer to medical doctors. In general usage it is ambiguous, but not when used in the military context. "military doctor" and similar terms per google searches are 50% more common usages than "military physician" and similar usages. Military srgeon and similar usages are used about half as often as military physician. I have not been able to determine however what the most common term is used when refering to these doctors without military appearing right by. I am pretty sure in that case doctor and surgeon would even more outstrip physician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a military context the term Surgeon is often used, even if no actual surgery is involved. See the various articles about Surgeons General. Rathfelder (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need a Russian speaker to tell us an appropriate translation of the Russian word, which may well be closely related to Greek, rather than Latin. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • English variation rules do not apply in places where English is not used. In places where English is not the primary langauge we name categories based on rules of English usage in general.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont understand why some of these country mergers have been agreed and others haven't
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:Zimbabwean 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: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is the right usage in places where British English is the norm. Physician is too specific a term in such places. That said, I would argue in the US even that doctor is a more common term, and we should rename all of these articles to medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I would expect this former colony to follow British usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to have no opposition. I wish I could figure out how to get more discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this piecemeal approach to renaming "physicians" to "medical doctors". There should be a single discussion to discuss either renaming Category:Physicians and all sucbats, or all subcats that should use British English. With regard to American English, while "doctor" is indeed more common, it is also ambiguous; "medical doctor" is rarely used except when making comparisons to non-medical doctors (hence the aforementioned ambiguity). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the sentiments of Black Falcon Rathfelder (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify... while I prefer a consolidated discussion, I do not necessarily agree with changing "physicians" to "medical doctors". -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here is that there are English variation implications. In British English "physician" can in no way, shape or form be used as a substitute for "medical doctor". This is the form of English used in Zimbabwe, and thus the controlling issue here. Even if physician is a workable name for the general category, it is not a workable name for this sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 5 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:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments by country[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories only contain sub-categories for Egypt, and are therefore not useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 23:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The 2nd-mill category was a re-creation following this 2015 discussion, but the other has not been discussed before. The creators of both these categories have since been blocked. – Fayenatic London 23:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there might be an argument of WP:SMALLCAT for the Category:3rd-millennium BC disestablishments by country, but we clearly can find much subcategories in the Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments by country. I've just added several categories to this tree.GreyShark (dibra) 08:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, civilization barely started and countries in the modern sense of the word were very rare. It's probably fair enough to have this type of categories for establishments, but here we are talking about disestablishments. Come on, this is just creating categories for the sake of creating categories, it's not at all helping readers to navigate easily to related articles (I'm also referring to the just created subcats here). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's barely possible to speak of countries in that period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I would prefer to delete all millennium categories. There have not been enough centuries of recorded history to need a higher category than century. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an interesting point, actually. But we might leave that for a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 5 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:Military physicians by nationality[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:Military doctors by country per parent Category:Military doctors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Military physicians by nationality to Category:Military doctors by country
  • Nominator's rationale There are two major issues with the current name. In the first place, a study reveals that "military doctor" is a more common usage than "military physician", so that should be used. In addition, these people should in general be classified by the military they were a part of, thus by country, and not by their inherent nationality, which is at times a term with debated meaning anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Id like to get rid of all the categories along the lines of "physicians by nationality", because where the doctors move from one country to another most of the articles do not contain any information about nationality one way or the other, and generally the place of practice is more notable - and it is easier to cope with people who work in more than one country. Rathfelder (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Military medical officers by country. Appears to be a far commoner name for these people throughout the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military doctors by country is a bit wider in scope than Military medical officers by country. Some of these doctors are part of resistance or guerilla operations. Not regular military officers. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still generally referred to as medical officers, in my experience. After all, civilians can be medical officers too. It's not only a term used in the armed forces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. The point of this category is the military connection. Medical officers would be a very misleading term in this context. Rathfelder (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hence military medical officers! Not at all misleading. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've seen the term military medical officer used in any of the articles.Rathfelder (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doubtful, especially in British articles. But you almost certainly haven't seen "military physician"! It's not a term I've ever seen anywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the term Military doctors is the most appropriate and least likely to give rise to misunderstanding. Rathfelder (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that "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) 13:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories which use terms not actually used in any of the articles generally lead to misunderstanding. Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few thoughts. A-Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so what is said in Wikipedia articles is not really a good way to judge the proper terms, although it is an easy way. I just remembered that the doctor I know by far the most about Russell M. Nelson (note my default description as an American, not even planned in any way), was a military doctor, although his role with MASH units in the Korean War, was more as a researcher than line doctor. I used to have a full length biography of Russell M. Nelson, but do not at present. This biography of Nelson published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [2] does not mention his work in Korea. It also consistently uses the words "surgeon" and "medical researcher" to describe him. So it does not give us much guidance on the appropriateness of "medical doctor" in the US, but it does support my general contention that the odd ph word is not as common as some people claim. How much it was written to reflect International English, and to avoid specific Americanisms I cannot say either. With both Britain and Nigeria being among the top ten locations where Latter-day Saints live, and more Latter-day Saints living outside of North American than in North America (I believe this is defining North American as US, Canada and Mexico, with Mexico being second only to the US in LDS membership), there is a growing desire to avoid colloquial Americanisms. On the other hand, after the US, the country with the most LDS members and heavy use of English, especially as a form of written communication, is the Phillipines, and Filipino English is heavily influenced by American English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the parent category has been renamed to Category:Military doctors, so keeping this one at this name now seems particularly odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 26 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:Scottish 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:Scottish military medical officers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 10 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:Indian 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:Indian military medical officers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename Category:Indian military physicians to Category:Indian military doctors
  • Nominator's rationale To begin with, it is acknowledged (even by those who oppose the proposal to rename the physician article to medical doctor) that universally, worldwide, the most common term for a medical doctor is simply calling them "doctor". Some argue this is the common usage. Well, in the case of "military doctors" this is the only meaning. No one goes around refering to the most learned experts on military history as "the learned doctors of the military". So the target is unambiguous. In my very rough google search "military doctor" got 315,000 hits, "military physician" 90 million, "military surgeon" 225,000. "army doctor" in quotes got almost 400,000 hits, while "army physician" got less than 250,000. Naval Doctor is twice as common as Naval physician. It is clearly the common name. In the case of India, the parent category is Category:Indian medical doctors. India in English usage is influenced by British English, where "physicians" is not at all the same as "medical doctor".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the people in the world don't speak English, so they don't use either term. Rathfelder (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Indian military medical officers. Commonwealth English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Indian military medical officers. There should be plenty of them. I presume India follows British practice; English is their national language, though that of an elite Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all military physicians are officers. Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes they are. Or at least warrant officers in the old-fashioned sense. Who are/were still generally referred to as officers. And civilians can still be medical officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are assuming all military doctors are part of regular armed forces. Some of them aren't. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most are. And even those that aren't can be referred to as medical officers. So no problem there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am neautral on the issue of medical officers v. medical doctors. I just know that the current name does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 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:British Virgin Islands 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: no consensus. A consolidated nomination might have a different outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale British English is the form used in the BVIs, and so physician is too specific a term for what is intended here. However even in American English "medical doctor" is probably a much better term to use than physician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are only 3 articles, are you not going to propose that the category should be abolished? Rathfelder (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where would we merge it to? The rules for category size are much different for categories for occupations, than for categories for sub-sets of an occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this piecemeal approach to renaming "physicians" to "medical doctors". There should be a single discussion to discuss either renaming Category:Physicians and all sucbats, or all subcats that should use British English. Please note, the statement that "in American English, medical doctor or just doctor is much, much more common a term than physician" is incorrect. "Doctor" is more common than physician but also ambiguous; "medical doctor" is rarely used except when making comparisons to non-medical doctors (hence the aforementioned ambiguity). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Black Falcon has totally ignored the English variation issues involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 5 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:Burmese 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: no consensus. A consolidated nomination might have a different outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational In Burma the Egnlish used is most often British English, which means that physician is a more specific term than medical doctor. However, even in American English, medical doctor or just doctor is much, much more common a term than physician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this piecemeal approach to renaming "physicians" to "medical doctors". There should be a single discussion to discuss either renaming Category:Physicians and all sucbats, or all subcats that should use British English. Please note, the statement that "in American English, medical doctor or just doctor is much, much more common a term than physician" is incorrect. "Doctor" is more common than physician but also ambiguous; "medical doctor" is rarely used except when making comparisons to non-medical doctors (hence the aforementioned ambiguity). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Black Falcon's claim is false. I was able a few weeks ago to find well over 100,000 cases of Russell M. Nelson being called a medical doctor. That hardly fits "rarely used", and most are not contrsting to other doctors. His comment also ignores the pressing English variation issues, which mean that in the case of Burma physician cannot be used as an equivalent to medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I see 19.6K results for "Russell M. Nelson" combined with "physician" versus 3.5K results for "Russell M. Nelson" combined with "medical doctor". Regarding the ENGVAR issue, I stand by my original comment: while I'm not necessarily opposed to using "medical doctors" instead of "physicians" for certain countries, I think it would be better to have a single discussion about all country-level subcats that should use British English (all Commonwealth nations, perhaps?) instead of these individual discussions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Black Falcon. If we are not careful we give the uninitiated the impression that physicians and medical doctors are two distinct categories. Rathfelder (talk) 12:26, 7 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:People in health professions[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: procedural close. I will add this category to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 17#Category:People in health professions by nationality, to avoid the possibility of the two discussions producing different outcomes (e.g. this nomination proposes "health care occupations" whereas the later one propose "health occupations"). In general, it is better either to nominate a parent category and its subcategories at once in a single discussion or to wait until a consensus forms for the parent category and then apply it to the subcategories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A slightly wider scope, and more inline with related categories. "Professions" would exclude some of the categories which are at present included. Rathfelder (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Category:People in healthcare occupations, the format used by some subcats, including managers which was the subject of a recent discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me. I've given up trying to standardise that. Rathfelder (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    and can we take the change through all the subcategories? Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if you nominate them. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall I wait for a decision on this first? Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rathfelder: There seems to be no opposition so I suppose you could already nominate the subcategories as well. Please combine them into one nomination and make sure that you cross-link the two discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do my best! But I think they should all go to "health occupations", as some categories are not actually health care.‎Rathfelder (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    About not including "care" in the category name, wouldn't that also apply to this nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Rathfelder (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the next nomination is here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 17 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:Gay-related television programs[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: purge (but no consensus regarding deletion).
Note, to facilitate purging I will change the header of the category page to:
This category is for live action and animated television series, miniseries, made for TV movies and pilots that consistently and prominently include one or more gay male characters.
This change in text is not to be regarded as the outcome of this discussion, nor as a supervote, but merely as an attempt to help in the implementation of the purging. The wording of this text is open for discussion at the category talk page if needed. The actual purging still needs to be done and I hope that the participants in this discussion will collaborate on this. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This recently created category is not a defining category, it is a category simply used for inclusion purposes where a list article would be better suited for the purpose. In fact, the parent category, Category:LGBT-related television programs specifically includes a note that says "For television programming that feature LGBT characters and episodes see Lists of television programs with LGBT characters", making this category redundant to that list. WP:CAT says "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Categories should be defining, not inclusive only. Many of the articles that have been added to this category only contain gay characters, but that inclusion is NOT defining. AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The purpose of this category along with the other similar categories (lesbian, bisexual, transgender) is for identifying TV programs where gay characters are included. I brought attention to the issue of how some editors are interpreting the category in the WikiProject LGBT studies talk page and proposed that the term "related" be changed to "inclusive". I fail to see how any category that brings attention to the inclusion of LGBT characters in television programs would be problematic. The WP:CAT guideline states up-front: "occasional exceptions may apply." A rigid interpretation of WP:CAT in this regard is antithetical to the improvement of LGBT coverage in Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary talk 14:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
→ Adding this as food for thought: I just included character Isaak Sirko from Dexter to the List of LGBT characters in television and radio. Dexter ran from 2006 to 2013. Depending on lists as the only source of identifying TV programs that include an L or G or B or T character, one or more, is not good enough. Dexter is not an "LGBT-related" series, so it does not contain an "LGBT-related" category. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories should be defining, not merely inclusive. The other categories that you mention should probably also be deleted because they are not defining either. There are plenty of categories under Category:LGBT-related television programs that are defining. The categories that are merely inclusive should be replaced by list articles and tied together by Lists of television programs with LGBT characters. This is not one of these "occasional exceptions" mentioned by WP:CAT as the category tree already makes provisions for list articles to replace non-conforming categories such as this. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition of "define" is: "State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of." (Oxford); "to explain and describe the meaning and exact limits of something." (Cambridge). That's precisely what the categories are and do. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is not defining. Inclusion of gay characters is not something that defines most of the programs that have been added to the category. For example Ray Holt is gay but Brooklyn Nine-Nine doesn't address gay issues any more than it addresses heterosexual issues. This category is no more defining than, say Category:People with brown hair. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. At the very least this is a confusingly defined category. It is named "Gay-related television programs", but apparently the criteria for inclusion is "Television program that includes one or more male gay character". But then it states; "A television series, movie, or pilot that includes Gay characters should not be automatically misinterpreted as gay-focused programming." So which one is it? "Related", what ever that means, "Includes" or "Focused"? And who decides where the line between each is drawn? I really can't see how this category can be compiled without a hefty slice of editors' POV for every entry. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the confusion? TV programs that are inclusive of LGBT characters are not necessarily TV programs about LGBT characters. The lists that have been compiled regarding LGBT characters (except for the soap opera list) are not sorted by television programs, they're presented by year or by character name. The categories, on the other hand, are automatically sorted by name of TV program. Furthermore, an editor familiar with a TV series or movie will know if there are LGBT characters included, but that same editor may not add the character or the series to an LGBT list. Example: Captain Ray Holt is a main character in Brooklyn Nine-Nine and he is Gay, but you don't see it mentioned in the main article even though the series has been recognized for (as The Advocate put it) "breaking ground...by nonchalantly making one of the show's main characters an older black man who also happens to be gay." He and the series appears in List of situation comedies with LGBT characters, yes — a list organized by year. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is sortable, so that it can be reordered on any of the other listed criteria at the reader's pleasure. So the fact that it's organized by year is not, in and of itself, a reason why a category needs to exist alongside it to sort them alphabetically — because the list can be reordered alphabetically too, just by clicking on the little arrows next to each column header. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and harshly curate. The existing category is basically just "category of television programs", but the category isn't inherently invalid, there are television programs which are about gay people or being gay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other categories under Category:LGBT-related television programs that serve a better purpose than this one, or that could be created. We could harshly curate it, but it's just going to get filled up again because of the confusing inclusion criteria. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unnecessary category - we even have radio programmes such as Round the Horne listed as TV. Someone has not done their homework. I really don't see any reason for this cat - you might as well have anything, such as "people who limp" or other unneeded links. David J Johnson (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's helpful for glbt research. Maybe can be called 'category:television programs with gay characters'? and do same for the others. 2A02:418:4014:1:0:0:0:10 (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And again, categories are supposed to be defining. Has nobody read WP:CAT? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CLN: (1) "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, list articles (including topical glossary, index, outline, and timeline articles), other lists including embedded lists, and navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." "(2) It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic."
Per WP:CATDEFINING: "For example, here: (1) "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio." "(2) Categorization should not be made by the type of an article."
So ... if a TV series is inclusive of LGBT characters (not necessarily all orientations — could also be only an L, G, B, or T), it is not inappropriate to include a category that defines that series as inclusive of such characters. If editors ignore or avoid including this information in the main article (as the above example I provided of a Brooklyn Nine-Nine main character) and it's not included in the article ... it does not change the fact that the TV series includes one or more L and/or G and/or B and/or T character. Categories can be renamed when a subject has evolved. And the television landscape for LGBT characters has. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it is not inappropriate to include a category that defines that series as inclusive of such characters - The point that you keep ignoring is that including gay characters is not a defining characteristic of most of the programs to which you have added the characters. They simply include gay characters, just as they include people who have brown hair, people who wear glasses, etc. No matter which way you try to string it, including gay characters in these programs is no different to including heterosexual characters. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having LGBT characters in a TV program is not the same as people "who have brown hair, people who wear glasses, etc." As a non-heterosexual person, that rationale can also be used to make my being attacked (which I have been) for being an out Lesbian also irrelevant. There's a reason why "Bury Your Gays" has become an issue in the TV industry. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're basing your Wikipedia work on your own personal experiences and that's not how it works. Why are your experiences at all relevant to listing gay characters and how does that comply with WP:CAT?
Wow. You really do know how to twist things, don't you? Have you ever considered that it is our personal experience that drives us to take an interest in being Wikipedia editors? According to your profile page, you "live in the Hunter Region of New South Wales and monitor most articles related to this." Translation: you're basing your Wikipedia work on the Hunter Region and New South Wales, and the monitoring of related articles, on your own personal experience about it. I base my interest on LGBT subjects on my personal experience as an LGBT person and what I consider to be topics of importance regarding LGBT subjects. If you think there isn't a need to include facts of relevance to the coverage of LGBT in Wikipedia, then there wouldn't be a reason and need for the existence of WP:WPLGBT. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious implication from what you wrote is that because you have had negative experiences as a lesbian, we somehow need a category to list gay characters in TV programs. Quite apart from the fact that this is not a defining characteristic of the programs, which you keep ignoring, this is quite different to living somewhere and monitoring the articles related to the region. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope on the first part. On the second, your interest in the region you live in contributes personal experiences to the articles you edit and monitor about the region. You can't separate the two from each other. The motive for your refusing to even consider renaming the categories is questionable, however. "Bury Your Categories", eh? Pyxis Solitary talk 09:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely seeing some WP:IDHT here. Categories should identify defining characteristics of the articles in the category. Gay characters in the subject of most of the articles are NOT defining characteristics. That's why there is no point renaming the category. Roscelese was quite correct in suggesting that the category should be harshly curated. Once that happens though, the category still has the problem that it is not defining and therefore should be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not defining Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an issue that involves LGBT subjects + Wikipedia. I suggested having the word "related" substituted with "inclusive" (i.e. a TV program that includes LGBT characters, because most don't). Imo, that would define the purpose of the category. Another editor suggested completely renaming it. Whatever the outcome, it needs to be determined by more than a handful of responders. The decision merits an RfC. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defining the category doesn't define the program and this is "Categories for discussion". It effectively is an RfC on the place in Wikipedia that this category does or does not have. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as clearly useful in some instances (e.g. Will and Grace, Looking), but prune entries that aren't adequately defined by the fact (e.g. Mike & Molly). A category for shows that are defined by the fact of their gay characters is perfectly fine and reasonable — but a category that's meant to contain every show that ever had any gay minor or supporting or one-off characters at all is simply excessive. If people want to research LGBT supporting characters in shows that weren't principally defined by their presence, well, we already have an entire set of lists of LGBT characters in TV shows for that purpose.
    That said, even shows that are defined by their LGBT content aren't necessarily about only gay men or only lesbians in many instances — as witness the fact that The L Word, a primarily lesbian-oriented show, has been categorized as gay as well on the basis of having a gay male supporting character or two, and the North American version of Queer as Folk has had to be filed as gay and lesbian and bisexual — so it's not entirely clear to me that we need to "quadrantize" the Category:LGBT-related television programs tree at all, rather than just keeping them at the common LGBT level. But even if people agree with my doubts about that, this would still need to be considered in tandem with Category:Lesbian-related television programmes, Category:Bisexuality-related television series and Category:Transgender-related television programs, not deleted independently of the other three — either they all stay or they all go, because the same rationales for either keeping or deleting them are equally applicable to all of them together, and there are no special issues that are uniquely applicable to this one in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, I've read WP:CAT, so don't ask, and this passes WP:CDD. Gay is not a trivial characteristic. Some readers will want to seek out Gay characters and don't want to hunt through the LGBT alphabet rainbow categories to find them. Wikipedia is here to organize this information and make the non-obvious links available to the readership. GetSomeUtah (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about gay being a trivial characteristic, it's about whether being gay is significant enough to be a defining characteristic of the program. In most cases it isn't defining, so the article should not be in the category. If readers want to "seek out" gay characters, the best place to do that is in List of gay characters in TV programs, not in a category. In most cases the inclusion of a series in the category is pointless, in some it's absolutely pointless. For example, Brooklyn Nine-Nine was added to the cat. That article doesn't even mention the word "gay" or allude to there being any gay characters in the program and a reader would wonder why they ended up at that article. If List of gay characters in TV programs existed the reader would have no problems identifying the gay chatracters. This category actually makes it harder to do what you suggest readers want to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the edit log, I see the response above is from AussieLegend. I would note that usually when the nominator feels the need to respond with virtually the same rationale to everyone who opposes the proposal, it underscores the lack of broader support for the proposal. That behavior also makes the thread ridiculously long and tedious, as this one has become. If others agree with the nominator about the substance of the proposal, it's far more compelling to let them speak to carry the argument. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you consider that maybe the response is because the opposers don't really understand WP:CAT, even after claiming to have read it? I note that you haven't actually rebutted anything that I wrote in your response. The problem with supporting a proposal like this is that a lot of editors tend to shy away from such topics because of the often negative responses and being tagged as a homophobe, regardless of the fact that they may be correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That response eloquently makes my point. Thank you. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, Brooklyn Nine-Nine was added to the cat. That article doesn't even mention the word "gay" or allude to there being any gay characters in the program and a reader would wonder why they ended up at that article." The main character Captain Raymond Jacob "Ray" Holt is a gay man. The series' portrayal of an older, black Gay man has been called "groundbreaking" by The Advocate (the article appears in the talk page). And there's this from NewNowNext, and this from Mic, and this from People, and this from AskMen, and ... and .... The addition of the category was appropriate given the importance of the character. What should be asked is why no editor (including you, who deleted the category from the article) hasn't considered mentioning it important enough to include in the main article. It's a disservice to the series presented by Wikipedia, it's a disservice to Wikipedia readers, and it's a disservice to LGBT subjects in Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary talk 15:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main character Captain Raymond Jacob "Ray" Holt - He's not the main character. He's just ONE of the 9 main characters credited.
What should be asked is why no editor (including you, who deleted the category from the article) hasn't considered mentioning it important enough to include in the main article. - The fact that he is gay is not significant enough in the series to warrant mentioning in the main article. If you bothered to read the article you'd see that the Cast and characters section is reasonably brief, in line with MOS:TV. Character descriptions are limited to "Actor as character" and nothing more, with detail in the characters article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:10, 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:Monstercat songs[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:Monstercat singles and purge of the non-singles. -- Tavix (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Monstercat is a record label and we do not categorise every song by label. There really isn't any significance to listing as this does, an album track as a record label song. I would have no objection to the category being renamed Category:Monstercat singles and the non-relevant members removed. Richhoncho (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would have to say agree, even with very famous and distinctive record labels, we don't have Motown songs, we do however have Category:Singles by record label, but that would only apply to a few of the actual articles among the many redirects currently populating this category. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Monstercat singles, and remove the non-relevant redirects. This makes sense, because the actual Monstercat article has a list of the singles notable enough to have their own pages. The category could become an extension of that, adding any singles that get their own wikipedia articles in the future. Embryo Yall (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When I created this category, my intention was for it to only contain the Monstercat songs that have wikipedia articles of their own. Other editors have added the myriad redirects for mostly non-notable songs. And, the name "Monstercat singles" would suit the category better than "Monstercat songs". It sounds more encyclopedic. Embryo Yall (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Monstercat singles per Embryo. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_26&oldid=1050366980"