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.
Propose deletingCategory:Track and field athletes by Canadian province or territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Container category for one category. This is not helpful for navigation. SFB17:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The content of the category might well be extended with other Canadian provinces, if desired. The question is more if an extension like that is really our desire, or, alternatively, do we consider type of sport x province to be a trivial intersection? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' -- There is a well-established tree for Canada as a whole, split by sport. The one article that I checked also had a Canada category. On the other hand this category has a multitude of siblings mostly with only 1-2 subcats. The question is what we do with the one subcat (Ontario), which will be left orphaned by this deletion. The obvious amsnwer to be to merge it with Sportpeople from Ontario, but will doing that lead to an over-large category? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the latter question is undoubtedly yes, so that would rather ask for expansion of this category tree rather than deleting it. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2015 (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.
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.
Propose renaming Category:Alternative timeline films to Category:Alternate timeline films
Nominator's rationale: I believe this category should either be renamed, with "Alternate" rather than "Alternative" being most common, or perhaps should be merged; we already have Category:Alternate history films and Category:Parallel universes in fiction, not to mention Category:Time travel films. There's no lead for this category as-is and I'm not sure what additional purpose it's intended to serve. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate history is a fictional alternative history to ours (the real history) e.g. in which specific events didn't take place or have other outcomes etc.; alternate timeline is completely different and closer to "Parallel worlds in fiction" than to alternate history - it's multiple timelines being shown in works of fiction; often times these timelines might even be interacting; see the new Terminator film to get an idea. --Fixuture (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are time travelling related films. Why not name the category like that? Alternative or alternate both seem pretty vague terms. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate history is very different from time-travelling and definitely needs to be kept separate from that. Indeed, most alternate history stories do not involve time travel and most time travel stories don't involve alternate history. I would put these movies in "Alternate history films", rather then "alternate timeline films", because "alternate history" is the better known term (indeed, alternate timeline redirects to alternative history. Parallel universes are often invoked in alternate history stories, but not always (often, there's only 1 universe: the alternate one) as overlap will be minimal. --Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough that alternate history is different. But how to match that with the actual content of this category (with a lot of time travelling)? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the debate above indicates that there is no consensus to what is being categorized, so it's likely to be neither defining nor objective. Moreover, alternate history is in the eye of the beholder; indeed any fiction set among some real events is "alternate/alternative" to what REALLY happened: Forrest Gump didn't shake Nixon's hand, played no role in ping-pong diplomacy, and didn't inspire Lennon to write Imagine; Rhett Butler played no role in the civil war by blockade running or whatever. Those played out alternate realities/timelines, but someone is subjectively choosing what does and doesn't fall in these categories, which shows they cannot stand. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change name. Also I don't think Carlossuarez46 understands what this category is about; I'd endorse a description to the category though (I've posted the explanation as I understand it a bit further up). And Marcocapelle probably didn't fully understand the difference between "Time travel films" and this category: alternate timelines usually (afaik not necessarily; e.g. in a film alternate timelines could show what could have been if some events turned out otherwise etc.) includes time travel but not all (most) time travel films aren't about alternate timelines.
For the name I'm not entirely sure which one is better; TVTropescalls it alternate timelines; io9uses both terms so I think "alternate timelines" is probably better. Yet on the other hand alternate or alternative might both be an suboptimal choice; maybe something with a meaning closer to "Multiple" (timelines films) would be a better choice. --Fixuture (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of categorization standards. The debate above clearly shows that there is no consensus regarding what this means. Where relevant, merge to Category:Time travel films, but be careful because an alternate timeline film does not necessarily have to depict time travel. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST18:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Added a description which should be clear enough to avoid any miscategorization. In addition to this thing being deployed in films being new I think there's just many people here lurking these categories for discussion who don't know much about the concept etc. --Fixuture (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2015 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:SciELO does not publish any journals, it is an access platform. Each and every journal that can be found on SciELO lists its own publisher (often learned societies and academic institutions). Access platform is not a defining characteristic for a journal (many journals can be accessed on multiple platforms, although I haven't checked whether that is the case for journals accessible through SciELO, exactly because it is not relevant). Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Randykitty's misunderstanding is understandable, as SciELO is a publishing house that adopts the non-traditional model of cooperative publishing (not unlike OHP). Here are some relevant quotations: "SciELO has been operating as a meta publisher"; "journals should be brought together under the umbrella of a publishing house. The experience in dealing with these journals would recommend SciELO to be this house"; "The relatively low penetration of international publishers in Brazil might be explained by the presence of SciELO."[1] Wikipedia should not be biased in favor of powerful international publishers and must recognize the distinct models of publishers in emerging countries. Thanks. 200.135.184.250 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a quote in the Google Scholar blog: "SciELO is 16 years old. Today, it publishes approximately one thousand selected peer-reviewed open access journals grouped into national collections." [emphasis added] [2]. Thanks. 200.135.184.250 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The very title of the paper that you link to is SciELO, Scientific Electronic Library Online, a Database of Open Access Journals: "Library", "database", but not "publisher". As I said before, every journal on SciELO lists it's own publisher. As the article does, a journal publishing platform, be it SciELO or JSTOPR, could be called a "meta-publisher", but that really is something very different from what we understand to be a "publisher". I clicked just one journal at random and got this: "published 4 times a year by the Wood Engineering Department, University of Bío-Bío in Concepción, Chile", not "published by SciELO". --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proof of the pudding is when you resolve the Digital Object Identifier assigned to an academic journal article, that it points to the Definitive Work (defined below) deposited at SciELO. In contrast, DOI for articles simply mirrored in digital libraries, such as JSTOR or PubMed Central, will resolve to their original publisher's website. For example, compare JSTOR2329099 and doi:10.2307/2329099; or PMID25977476 vs. doi:10.1242/jcs.160879. "Definitive Work" here is precisely defined by CrossRef to help in finding the publisher, as follows: "The final version of a work which has been published. Typically, the Definitive Work has been accepted, edited and published in print and/or digital form. The publishing organization gives its imprimatur to the Definitive Work. Such works should be assigned a DOI by the publisher. The term “Published Journal Article” refers to a Definitive Work appearing in a journal."[3]Fgnievinski (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you can try to muddle things as much as you like, but the "proof of the pudding" is that not a single journal on SciELO lists SciELO as its publisher. ALL of them list a different publisher. In the case of "published by X on behalf of Y", those journals list X as publisher (X would be SciELO in this case). --Randykitty (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes reality is just not as black and white as one might wish. I started this category after I noticed that ((Infobox journal)) had been used in Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria to inform the following: "publisher = SciELO on behalf of the Academia Brasileira de Neurologia"; and now what puzzles me most, is that it seems it was you who made that edit ([4]) -- did you change your mind? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, I goofed. The journal's website clearly says that it is published by the Brazilian Academy of Neurology. I have corrected the article. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This appears to be a publication platform, not a publisher; anyway, where there is a leared society (whetehr or not operating in conjuction with a print publsiher), even the print publisher is not worth having a category for. Does it matter whther a learned journal is published by Wiley, Maney, or Taylor & Francis? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... fundamental roles of what is called here the meta-publisher function exerted by SciELO:
- an ahead-of-print option
- multilingual publications
- the whole editorial flow, including submission, peer review, and online publication ...
- personalized services for registered users ...
- interoperability with international and national information systems ...
- improved management of intellectual property ...
...
The SciELO meta-publishing functions are carried out as public services"
I accept that is the implication of what I said, and I do not resile from that. I do not think the publisher is a signifciant charactersitic of an academic journal. I do not think we categorise books by their publisher. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2015 (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:Burials at Wren Chapel (College of William & Mary)
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.
Comment. The rationale basically applies to the whole burials tree. It seems like, thus far, the place of burial has been considered to be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – burials categories have been at cfd many times. It seems to me that this is the sort of factoid (like school or university or year of birth or death) which is used for categorising (although not obviously defining). Oculi (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep where one ends up is part of the basic background on which we categorize everyone. At least it's objective and I would say defining for most. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2015 (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.