< April 28 April 30 >

April 29

Films about health care

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films about health care to Category:Films about health
Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about health care to Category:Documentary films about health
Nominator's rationale: The films included in these categories include a number of films that are not per-se about healthcare or provision/receipt of medical services, but are rather about health issues more generally (i.e nutrition, diet, etc). In addition, the subcats and films in this category are broader than how healthcare is traditionally defined (for example, films about HIV/AIDS, drugs, alcoholism, etc). I feel that for this particular category, there isn't a point in trying to distinguish between which films are about 'healthcare' and which ones are about 'health', and since health is the accepted more general category, this should be renamed. There is an existing sub-category for Category:Medical-themed films for those that take place within a medical setting for example. Note that I would oppose creating a new category for just 'health'-themed films, as it would be rare to find a 'health' film that didn't at one point talk about doctors, and it is certainly impossible to find a film dealing with doctors that doesn't deal with the result (i.e. health). KarlB (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general I would say that films about specific diseases such as Aids would come under health care, as some form of special treatment or care is involved. Films about general health topics such as the environment or diet and food (often relate to the population as a whole) would be in films about health. Cjc13 (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. It sounds like your definition of 'health' is something like Public health, since you mention population approaches, and I'd like to point out that in some definitions public health is *part* of health care (see health care). But if we take your description, this means a film about toxic materials in the river and the health impacts it has on people, including various types of cancer, should *not* go in healthcare according to your proposal? Or a film about a severely overweight person, who has to go on a serious diet in order to control his weight, since it is about food, it should go in health? Or to take the HIV example, here are 3 HIV/AIDs films I chose earlier to discuss:
The Broadcast Tapes of Dr. Peter: "The film is based upon the video diary of Peter Jepson-Young, better known as "Dr. Peter", which documented his life as a person with AIDS."
A Closer Walk "what are the underlying causes of AIDS; the relationship between health, dignity, and human rights; and the universal need for action, compassion, and commitment to counter what has become the worst plague in human history."
Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt is a 1989 documentary film that tells the story of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt.
It's not clear that any of these is really about healthcare, but per your argument above they should automatically go there. My point in making this nomination is not, as some seem to believe, that I believe that there is no difference between health and healthcare. My point is, it is not worth distinguishing films on this basis, as no-one else does so, and for the same reason that we don't need to have both Category:Films about education and Category:Films about teaching. No-one has provided any evidence that 3rd party sources distinguish films in this way. If you cannot provide a 3rd party source that shows how to sort films between health and healthcare, how can you expect wikipedia editors to do so? Trust me, it's not as easy as you are making it out to be. Having looked at a lot of these categories over the past few months, I can guarantee you one thing - there is zero consensus by editors on the boundary, and on when something becomes health vs healthcare. So unless you can propose something more precise than the ideas above, I'd kindly ask that you reconsider your vote. --KarlB (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2012 (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:Units_of_chemical_measurement

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/Withdrawn. The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Units of chemical measurement to Category:Quantities and units of chemical measurement
Nominator's rationale: Many of the pages in this category refer to chemical QUANTITIES, not UNITS. This should be reflected in the name of the category. RolfSander (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2012 (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.

Works about race

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about race to Category:Documentary films about race and ethnicity
Propose renaming Category:Plays about race to Category:Plays about race and ethnicity
Propose renaming Category:Works about race to Category:Works about race and ethnicity
Propose renaming Category:Films about race to Category:Films about race and ethnicity
Propose renaming Category:Books about race to Category:Books about race and ethnicity
Nominator's rationale: Renaming towards a broader category which is more inclusive; while in the US, race and ethnicity are sometimes used as synonyms, in most of the world this is not the case. Thus, adding "ethnicity" makes this a broader category, and allows inclusion of films which are not purely framed in the context of 'race'. Note: a merge of some sort with Category:Film by culture could be envisaged at some point in the future - I would welcome ideas on the best way to structure this. --KarlB (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the interest of consistency you may want to include its parent, Category:Films about race, which has a similar description. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    comment there is also Category:Works about race Category:Books about race and Category:Plays about race and even Category:Films by culture. You're right this is more complex than just one cat. If you have broader recommendations on how to clean this up it would be appreciated. --KarlB (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish, just do a group nom for all "foo about race" categories where you feel the same logic applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I did a group nomination of the others here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_29#Category:Works_about_race --KarlB (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant that you could have modified this nom to add the others here, but that's fine, too, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ah. hmmm. I'm not sure what to do now. Shall I move this one + discussion over to the newer day, to give it all time for more discussion? I'm not sure what the policy is on moving discussions between days. --KarlB (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2012 (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 from islands in the Slate Islands of Scotland

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: administrative close: all three categories were emptied and speedily deleted per G7. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New Category:People from the Slate Islands is arguably redundant but having two sub-categories with one entry each and little likelihood of expanding them surely is. Ben MacDui 14:50, 29 April 2012 (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.

Works by time period of setting

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films by time period of setting to Category:Films by period of setting
Propose renaming Category:Novels by time period of setting to Category:Novels by period of setting
Nominator's rationale: Some "period" categories use "time period" and others just use "period." The word "time" seems unneeded to me in this context, and possibly for other categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2012 (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:Isle of Lismore

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: speedy merge to pre-existing Category:Lismore, Scotland, which was created about 40 hours prior to Category:Isle of Lismore being created. The first-created category generally has priority until consensus determines otherwise. As noted, if a rename of the category is desired, the best starting place would be a nomination at WP:RM to move Lismore, Scotland to Isle of Lismore. Until the article is moved, the standard convention would be for the category to match the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Isle of Lismore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recently created duplicate of Category:Lismore, Scotland whose parent article is Lismore, Scotland. Ben MacDui 13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion of Category:People from the Isle of Lismore at the same time. In this case, there is only one entry and if it is needed at all, it should be moved. Ben MacDui 13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep naming format when disambiguation needed for Island names. See existing cats for other Argyll Islands Category:Isle of Bute and Category:Isle of MullRafikiSykes (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately you have misunderstood the standard procedure (which I admit has a logic that is not altogether helpful at times). This is to name categories after the parent article. We have Isle of Mull and it's category of the same name, but Skye and Category:Skye. I notice you created Category:Isle of Lismore shortly after Category:Lismore, Scotland had been created and moved its entire contents into the new category. It would have been more helpful to propose the category be moved. Ben MacDui 13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis category was named after the parent article Isle of Lismore.RafikiSykes (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't . You moved Lismore to "Isle of Lismore" without any discussion and created a duplicate category. I am requesting the redirect "Lismore Scotland" be speedied so that it can be moved back per WP:PLACE. Ben MacDui 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was named after the article as the article Isle of Lismore was created first. The category was created after after the article was moved, the name of the previous category was no longer in line with the parent article.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notethat speedy was declined by an impartial userRafikiSykes (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAlso note the common use of the name [10] - Isle of Lismore Community Website, [11] - Walks on the Isle of Lismore and such like. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to rename the article, this isn't the place but do read WP:Place. There is no provision there for this kind of move. Ben MacDui 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I emptied 'Isle of Lismore" and put the articles back into 'Lismore Scotland" whence they came. Apologies of this was out of process, but no-one asked for them to be moved from there in the first place. I am now snookered by the page move and the discussion has started at Talk:Isle of Lismore. For what its worth, the available literature doesn't use "Isle of... ", that tends to be tourist -oriented websites. What a lot of fuss that a little advance communication could have forestalled! Ben MacDui 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIs it ok if I put the articles in both categories for now? Otherwise there is a risk of this category being recommended for deletion purely due to people thinking it is nearly empty.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2012 (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:History of Brazil by time

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:History of Brazil by time to Category:History of Brazil by period
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Non-standard and duplicates existing category. Tim! (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2012 (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.

Anachronistic soldiers

Category:Years in Canadian sports

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: C2C speedy to Category:Canadian sport by year per WP:ENGVAR The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Years in Canadian sports to Category:Canadian sports by year
Nominator's rationale: Merge to the more standard format in Category:Sports by country and year. The title could also be Category:Canadian sport by year. I don't really care about the singular/plural issue. Pichpich (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2012 (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.
More