March 13
Rename of county commissioners categories
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominators rationale: This is consistent with all others. Greg Bard (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most of these proposed changes look reasonable, but the Delaware category name should be Category:County council members and commissioners in Delaware. "Council member" is the usage I find in two of Delaware's three counties (New Castle County and Sussex County). The third county (Kent County) has commissioners: [1]. None of the three counties uses "councilor". --Orlady (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. I have amended the nomination. Greg Bard (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I wonder whether someone has been overzealous in converting County Commissioners and County Freeholders to lower case for articles. As an Englishman, I would expect a New Jersey county freeholder to be a person who had freehold property in a county on NJ. In fact a County Freeholder appears to be an elected office. I am not formally voting as I am the other side of the pond and do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Peterkingiron: The British use of "freeholder" that you describe didn't survive much past colonial times on this side of the Big Water. I can't recall the word being used in the modern U.S. in any context other than New Jersey county government. The proper noun treatment could apply to freeholders of a particular county (e.g., in Podunk County Freeholder Jason Jones), but the general term "county freeholder" should use lower case, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not make my commnet a vote, because I knew that i lacked knowledge. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:SpringerOpen academic journals
- 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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 10. The Bushranger One ping only 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Springers tag for journals that are completely open access. As far as I can discern, however, SpringerOpen is not an independent imprint of Springer (like BioMed Central, for example). Hence I propose to upmerge this to the parent cat. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as category creator. our page on Springer lists SpringerOpen as one of the imprints alongside BioMed Central, which is why I created the category in the first place. Also, the large number of journals in this category means it is probably better to keep it rather than dump it into the main category as suggested above, which already has 364 entries. I might also note that other reliable sources seem to agree with me that SpringerOpen is an imprint: [2] Jinkinson talk to me 15:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Yes, I added that myself, I see from the article history, but it appears that that was in error. Here is what Springer themselves say about SpringerOpen. They call it their "portfolio" of open access journals. Nowhere do they say that it is an imprint (compare that with the link to BMC on that page, which is not described as a "portfolio" but as a "publisher"). If you look at the people involved, they all have affiliations listed (from "Springer" to "Springer Singapore" to "BioMedCentral"). None of them seem to work for "SpringerOpen", which is what you would expect for a "real" imprint. SpringerOpen just seems to be a name used for marketing purposes (like "Springer Open Choice", used for OA articles in subscription journals). Yes, there are a lot of journals under the SpringerOpen label (although not all of them are notable yet), but that is in itself not a reason to create a separate cat. And yes, the cat with Springer journals has a lot of entries, but that is a bit the nature of these categories and Elsevier, Sage, and Wiley-Blackwell's cats are even larger (and if ever the latter decided to fully merge with John Wiley and Sons and abandon even the imprint status, that cat would get even larger). In short, I see no reason for a category named for a marketing tool. --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. On balance, I think it's better to group these together than to, as Randykitty says, categorize by what is essentially a marketing tool. They are all published by the same company. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:East German yacht racing biography stubs
- 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 category, rename template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only 3 articles in the permanent category. Propose to delete category because this stub category is severely underpopulated. Propose renaming template from ((East Germany-yachtracing-bio-stub)) to ((EastGermany-yachtracing-bio-stub)), and upmerging template to Category:Yacht racing biography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Historic Jewish communities
- 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) 03:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: There is no clear differentiation between "historic" Jewish communities and current Jewish communities, it is better just to have a general category with the understanding that this is reflecting the whole timeline of a city or town's experience. Pharos (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Or possibly, call them all "historic", if that makes more sense. For example, Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the United States includes a number of schools that are still majority African American.--Pharos (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The category page defines the contents as either former Jewish communities, or those that are greatly diminished. It seems to me both valid and useful to keep these together. The category also includes some that are locations of Ancient Jewish communities, some of which are once again Jewish communities; as these were mostly non-Jewish for a long period, I am inclined to keep them in the category too, although the category explanation should then be amended. – Fayenatic London 16:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Oppose per Fayenatic. It would be misleading to categorize most of the contents of this little tree under the main category. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Categorizing places by the ethno-religious composition of the population ignores that populations can and do change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Some of the subcategories are being misused for places that had a substantial Jewish community (which is a performance-type category, unless the places were majority Jewish): this suggests that the sub-cat needs renaming, though in the cases I looked at much of the article was about its Jewish community. Emigration to UK USA and Israel, together with the holocasut will have greatly reduced the Jewish population of many. On the whole I am inclined to keep, but the tree needs considerable work to eliminate or amend performance-type elements. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or upmerge as ambiguous. The inclusion guidelines are in the end subjective, ambiguous and grouping what some would say may not be defining characteristics. I will grant that if the inclusion criteria are changed and a cleanup of the content is done, I could be swayed to a keep, but barring that, this should not stay. Add to that the issues with defining what a Jewish community is] and what it was over time and even the parent category proposed for the upmerge becomes problematic. So as Peterkingiron said, the tree needs work it we are too keep it. If the decision is to keep and cleanup, I think the nom should be allowed to bring this back in 30 days to review the results and see if keeping is still the right solution. I don't think that a simple keep should be the close decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It might be useful to have a category for "previous Jewish communities" for those that no longer exist, but "historic" is subject to too many different definitions. --Lquilter (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I strongly oppose this proposal. I agree with 'Fayenatic London' and 'Peterkingiron'. Yambaram (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The inclusion criteria of this category are also unworkable. Odessa was never a Jewish community. There were Jews in Odessa, but they were never even a majority there. This category lacks a clear inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One option I've been thinking about is a putting all of these in a categorization of Category:Jewish communities in X. This might help as a number of countries/regions have only historic major Jewish communities, and someone who sees e.g. Category:Jewish communities in Arabia is likely to realize these are all historic.--Pharos (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional cowboys
- 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:Fictional cowboys and cowgirls. I think there's a consensus here to rename, though the consensus for the new name wasn't as strong. For that reason, users should be free to nominate the new category for renaming without prejudice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional cowboys to one of the following(s):
- Category:Fictional cowboys and cowgirls
- Category:Fictional vaqueiros (the origin of american "cowboy" culture)
- Category:Fictional cowhands
- Nominator's rationale: Not all of them are 'boys'. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, "cowboys" can be found in all nations/cultures of The Americas (from Hawaii to Argentina to Canada.--172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than having two categories. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Category: Fictional cowfolk ? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No article/dictionary/theasurus exists on the English Wikipedia that is both more appropriate or concise while ephasising the keypoint then the word "cowboy" unfortunately. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename at times inclusivity trumps brevity. People are not even agreed that females engaged in this can be called "cowboys", and the term "cowgirl", especially in recent fiction, has seemed to be the preferred one, so we should reflect that here. No one ever calls Jessie from toy story anything but a "cowgirl".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Category was not tagged for renaming. Accordingly, the discussion should remain open for another seven days.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps we could get both brevity and inclusivity with Category:Fictional cowhands.--Pharos (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish this was asked when the NFR was in town and I could have done a survey of those attending. :-) Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Amparador, Buckaroo, Buttero, Campino, Chagra, Chalán, Cowboy, Csikos, Garrochista, Gardian, Gaucho, Gulyás, Huaso, Llanero, Mesteñeros, Morochuco, Paniolo, Qorilazo, Stockman, Vaquero, Vaqueiro, Wrangler... LOTS of words for cowboys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.77.75 (talk • contribs)
- Re-list yet again but add in the parent Category:Cattlemen and its descendants Category:Cattlemen by nationality & Category:American cattlemen. (Other countries should use "cowboy" or their national names.) There is only one fictional cowgirl who currently has an article, namely Jessie (Toy Story), and although my first thought was to go along with renaming, I think we might as well keep the name "Cowboys", especially if the parent & others can be renamed to match. – Fayenatic London 20:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is gender-neutrality gone mad. Women appear in cowboy films, as wives, girlfriends etc, but they were not usually engaged in herding cattle. The fact that Jessie (presumably a doll in cowboy outfit) appears should not be allowed distort a clearly defined category. I would categorise her as a fictional cowboy, despite her (fictional) gender. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
- Rename The reason being inclusiveness. Also the category cowhands in fiction would be needed to include films like Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. In addition only characters who actually herd cattle should be listed; old west gunfighters are not cowhands; I don't recall the an with no name herding cows on screen or even mentioning having done so previously like with his war experience. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.