< February 18	February 20 >

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. Kbdank71 15:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:North Carolina soccer to Category:Soccer in North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: as to match other cat pages listed at Category:Soccer in the United States by state Mayumashu (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War I Mediterranean shipwrecks to Category:World War I shipwrecks in the Mediterranean

Propose renaming Category:World War II Mediterranean shipwrecks to Category:World War II shipwrecks in the Mediterranean

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proposed new names will match the naming style of parent category Category:Shipwrecks in the Mediterranean and the other subcategories of Category:World War I shipwrecks and Category:World War II shipwrecks, respectively. Bellhalla (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems a good move to me. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. About time this was done, kept meaning to do it myself and then forgetting.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yes (if someone changes the individual items, or can this be done automatically). Note that for World War I shipwrecks I have created the subcategory "Shipwrecks in the Dardanelles" as there were a number of them, just listed as Dardanelles (and seperately as World War I shipwrecks)! Hugo999 (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the consensus is in favor of the move, a bot will handle category updates in the member articles. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Longwood University Baseball to Category:Longwood Lancers baseball

Propose renaming Category:Longwood University baseball players to Category:Longwood Lancers baseball players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard for US college sports categories is "(Short school name) (Nickname) (sport)". Same general structure applies to player categories. Dale Arnett (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus at this point. Renomination for deletion would be available if this isn't cleaned up and pruned per the discussion. Kbdank71 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Similar to the recently deleted Category:Abusers, this is an undefined category. The category also refers to its "main article", abuse, which is essentially a laundry list setting out the different "targets" and/or "types" of abuse. (These include animal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, spousal abuse, psychological abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, masturbation sometimes termed "self-abuse", spiritual abuse, verbal abuse, vocabulary abuse, etc.) These things are cobbled together sharing the word "abuse", which apparently is a pejorative on which different people disagree. The category is way too broad and is basically a coincidence of name: don't like it, call it abuse even if it doesn't meet any NPOV definition - even the main article's: "Abuse refers to the use or treatment of something (a person, item, substance, concept, or vocabulary) that is harmful." So if the treatment of a concept or vocabulary is "abuse" and what is "harmful" is clearly a POV assertion: is masturbation harmful (who's hurt?), are grammatical errors or misusing words (who's hurt?), is leading people to Hell via a religion you don't agree with harmful? Once we all agree with what is "abuse" in the abstract, and what is and isn't "harmful" (by which time, there will be world peace and an end to hunger), the obvious problems involving WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP, and WP:V remain. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this category is about the concept of abuse in its many manifestations, not the people who do it. It is needed as the parent category for its various subcats and the underlying articles which are not nominated for deletion and should not be as they serve a useful purpose of encyclopedic knowledge. The purpose of categories is to help the reader navigate to WP articles; deleting such catgegories just makes it more difficult for readers and is of no benefit to anyone. Hmains (talk)
• Keep. Unlike the recently-deleted cat:Rude behaviour, this is categorised in Category:Core issues in ethics which strikes me as right. Strongly encyclopedic classification. Some of the current member article could be moved down into one or more sub-cats, but is there a significant POV problem over the inclusion of any of them? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because no one has proposed a NPOV definition of "abuse". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NPOV concerns, also borders on categorizing based on shared name. Otto4711 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Otto4711 is probably right here, but I'd like to allow some time to let someone take a chance to clean this. Why is Category:Crimes a subcategory? That is one of many problems that I see. Maybe after a cleanup we can make a more informed decision. But I'll say this, if many of the current categories remain, I'll support deletion. If closed following this suggestion, it should be noted that this category can be nominated in 30 days if there is not a major cleanup and purging of inappropriate categories and articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete to get rid of the extra level of categorization. If it's desired to rename fictional construction workers to fictional builders, then this can be recreated. Kbdank71 15:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional builders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category contains only a single sub-category and no articles. It impedes rather than assisting navigation. In short it's superfluous. No need to upmerge the sub-cat as it's already in the parents. (Note: an earlier CFD for this category was part of a huge mass nomination that did not address the merits of this one in particular.) Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the nom makes a watertight case, as we have come to expect. Occuli (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note that "someone" (well, me, actually), depopulated the parent, merging to the child cat. However, the more I think about it, I wonder if perhaps that merge should be reverted. Builder is a UK term, so this actually is a US/UK English usage issue, and perhaps should have further discussion... - jc37 11:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And an Australian term too. (And I wouldn't be surprised to see it's common in other countries too) When we hear "construction worker" we think of one of the members of the Village People. Bob the Construction Worker is just WRONG. I agree that further discussion is needed. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I see a guy building a building, I suppose that I would most naturally call him a construction worker, but here in the USA "builder" would surely be sensible to the vast majority of Americans. I don't think that there would be any problems on that account. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. While I think that the delete side of the issue may have the stronger argument, I don't see that as reaching consensus. With the merge nothing is really lost and any articles that don't belong in the upmerged categories can be removed. There is clearly no consensus to keep this category.Vegaswikian (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Schoolteachers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is being used to house articles about people who were schoolteachers but also did stuff outside of the profession and became notable for something other than being a schoolteacher. E.g., Sting (musician), Roberta Flack, Ron Jeremy, Art Garfunkel, and Stephen King are not notable for their employment as schoolteachers. As such, it's an overcategorization by employment and can be deleted rather than being merged into Category:Schoolteachers. (Even if I am wrong about the above, the category should still be deleted since it would be redundant to Category:Schoolteachers since we don't classify occupational categories by current/former status.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion as over categorisation, would it be for recently deceased person be moved into this category as they are no longer teaching. Gnangarra 12:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge not delete ideally to the relevant national category of Category:Schoolteachers. To say members "are not notable for their employment as schoolteachers" is the wrong test. Is it "defining" is the test. In the case of say Sting I would say it is. In fact, since it is rather hard to become notable at the chalkface, the great majority of the huge membership of cat:schoolteachers are former ones, except for some headteachers. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notability" is a lower standard than "definingness", so if they are not "notable" for being schoolteachers, they are also not "defined" by being so. I purposefully chose the lower standard to demonstrate that they don't even meet that, let alone the higher standard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge not delete – notability is a higher standard than 'definingness', as can be seen from most of the categories on most pages. The person has to be notable; then there are various characteristics defining for that person. John Lennon was not notable for being from Liverpool; people murdered in New York are not all notable. (Most of the people in Category:Schoolteachers are not notable for being schoolteachers.) Occuli (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are confusing the issue, see my comments below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a "current" category (as in currently no longer a schoolteacher) of a sort; not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Schoolteachers Mayumashu (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Schoolteachers per well-reasoned remarks of Johnbod & Occuli. Any that may have just dipped a toe into teaching can be removed (unless, of course, they were swimming teachers). Ultimately they should all be moved into the approp. national sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on "defining" and "notable". Occuli and Johnbod above are both confusing the issue of "defining" vs. "notable"—here we are referring to a notable or defining fact about a person, not whether the person is notable. A fact about someone may be notable (e.g., he worked at McDonald's for 10 years before becoming a movie star), but that doesn't mean the fact is defining for the person. Here, the fact that they were schoolteachers is notable, but it is not defining. If it's notable but not defining, it should be mentioned in the article but not be the subject of categorization. If every "notable" fact about a person is "defining", then we could have categories for almost anything that is mentioned in an article. Clearly, that's not the way categories have been approached by most users. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't in fact think there is any wiki-dogma about notability as it relates to things within articles, just about the notability of article subjects. "Defining" is not exactly defined either, but I use as a rule of thumb that it should be something that a reasonable length stub article should mention. Obviously not everything that is defining can or should be categorized, per other policies. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true; when referring to a feature of a person's life, saying something is "notable" is not the same as talking about "notability" of the person in the wiki-dogma sense, which is probably the source of the confusion. I was more using it in a colloquial sense—if something about someone is "notable", it can be "noted" in the person's article, but it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of "defining" the person. I see "former occupations" that a person participated in that are otherwise unrelated to the person's wiki-dogma "notability" as falling into that class. But clearly, there have to be some things about a person that are worth noting in an article but not worth categorizing. Either way, this category will be deleted, so whether to include the contents in Category:Schoolteachers a bit of a moot point that in the future can be debated ad nauseum on the talk pages of the individual articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I now follow Good Olf's rationale. I would go with the upmerging + future debates 'ad nauseum on the talk pages of the individual articles'. Occuli (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the vagueness of the word "notable", once detatched from the great body of guidelines we have on "notability" for subjects, and the potential for confusion with that meaning, I think the word is best avoided altogether in discussing article content (as I have commented several times recently). GO has accused me twice above of being "confused" but the confusion is his, or was certainly introduced by him. The real question is: are the people in this category significantly less defined as teachers than those in the main one, and I think the answer is on the whole no. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never said you were "confused". I said you were "confusing the issue", i.e., conflating what I meant with what you thought I meant. If you think that means I said you were confused, then you must be confused. I admit to having introduced the source of the confusion, but it was never me who was confused, since I was entirely aware at all times of what I meant. :) Obviously, I should avoid using terms colloquially when users may associate these with WP-lingo regardless of context. But moving to the issue that matters, if you really think the people in the nominated category right now are defined by being schoolteachers (Sting, Ron Jeremy, Art Garfunkel, etc.), you have unusually low standards for that test. The fact that they may not be "significantly less defined" as those already in Category:Schoolteachers is a poor test, since there is no guarantee the category has been applied correctly to those already in the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless we also create categories such as Category:Former school students, Category: Former diaper users. Doesn't give any additional interest or functionality, so get rid of it. --John (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every factoid about a person goes into a category. That is the very definition of overcategorization: not every verifiable fact ... in an article requires an associated category. Nor would I want to upmerge to Schoolteachers, as that implies that these people are currently schoolteachers, and that is not the case. --Kbdank71 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It implies no such thing - we don't have 'current' cats. Matthew Arnold is currently deceased and is correctly placed in quite a number of categories for which being sentient is a pre-requisite. Occuli (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Though it doesn't directly come out and say it, this cat (by its included members) appears to actually be: Celebrities who were formerly schoolteachers. And as noted by others above, this intersection is probably not a categorisation trend we should start. Unless they started as a child, most celebrities had a "former" (or even ongoing) career besides that which conveyed them celebrity status. Not opposed to listification, if the list can be developed to Wikipedia standards. Oppose automatically merging. In this case, categorisation of these individuals' articles should be done on a case-by-case basis at editorial discretion. - jc37 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to appropriate subcategory of Category:Schoolteachers by nationality per Occuli and Johnbod. Much of the above discussion is off-track; the very simple point, and one for which there is unanimous agreement, is that we don't categorize by whether someone ever left an occupation, only by whether they engaged in in during their lives. All other quibbles above are really for case-by-case determinations of whether an article subject should be categorized as a schoolteacher, but certainly all "former schoolteachers" would qualify as "schoolteachers." Postdlf (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Where winners are definitely notable, I don't see in this discussion anything that points to the contestants being notable as well. Even Jonbenet Ramsey was a winner of several pageants. Kbdank71 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American beauty pageant contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is to serve as a test nomination for the various sub-categories of Category:Beauty pageant contestants. In this recent CFD there was support for deleting contestant categories as non-defining. If that consensus is confirmed through this nomination then work can begin on sorting out the rather byzantine pageant contestant category structure. The various delegate sub-cats are not IMHO a factor here. While each delegate was a contestant in the associated pageant, the delegates would not be contestants had they not won a state-level pageant and so they can be appropriately categorized as pageant winners. Otto4711 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete such a broad category scope can serve no useful purpose, concievably anyone who has been in any beauty contest in America(even presuming thats just the US) doesnt make sense, surely it would be more appropriate to just categorise winners of the notable pageants Gnangarra 12:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeping this category would not mandate the creation of articles for every individual who was ever a beauty pageant contestant, as the comments above seem to incorrectly suggest. That a notable individual was such a contestant is (or is often, at least) a highly significant or defining fact about them, and for many women this is equivalent to an occupation, is it not? JonBenét Ramsey, for example, is not defined alone by being a murdered child; what unleashed the media frenzy was that she was a murdered child beauty pageant contestant. Postdlf (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think. I'm a bit torn on this issue, as I can see both sides—I understand and agree with what Otto's points are but I also acknowledge the points that Postdlf raises. On balance, I think Otto's approach here would be appropriate—to keep the "delegate" categories but to delete the categories for contestants who did not ever win anything. JonBenét Ramsey is an interesting exception, but I do think it is an exception and not a normal situation that would require an entire category for contestants. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 23 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Legend of the Seeker to Category:Sword of Truth

Nominator's rationale: Merge - small category with no immediate growth potential. No need to separate these from the main category for the book series. Otto4711 (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The one remaining article looks like it's going to be deleted. Kbdank71 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bela Kiss albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category for albums of a not notable band. Enigma^msg 05:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – it has 2 articles, so should be kept while the articles survive. Send the articles to afd - if they are deleted the category can be deleted automatically after 4 days. Occuli (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that the category will soon be empty. Enigma^msg 02:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Underpopulated category which is pretty much going to remain so. Upmerge to higher level cats. Orderinchaos 10:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sole higher level category, Category:Albums by artist, states 'Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded'. In this case the difficulty is that Bela Kiss (band) has been deleted at afd. Occuli (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete after manually merging articles to an appropriate category. Kbdank71 15:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Tunisia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is a very irregular, catch-all category that serves no useful function. "People from" categories are generally reserved for cities, states, provinces, etc. This one is completely redundant to Category:Tunisian people, Category:Tunisian expatriates, Category:Tunisian emigrants, and Category:People of Tunisian descent. The articles will need to be assessed and dealt with on an individual basis, so there is no single, obvious merge target. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge and delete, thankful that there are not many articles to move. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename all to "Fooian medical doctors" (and I'd like to welcome back the Australian contingent to CFD, it's always a sincere pleasure when you show up). Kbdank71 15:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Category:Ethiopian doctors
2. Category:Australian doctors
3. Category:Panamanian doctors
4. Category:Filipino doctors
5. Category:Gambian doctors
6. Category:Irish doctors
7. Category:Jamaican doctors
8. Category:Pakistani doctors
9. Category:English doctors
10. Category:Welsh doctors
11. Category:Scottish doctors
12. Category:British doctors
13. Category:New Zealand doctors
14. Category:Nigerian doctors

Propose renaming all to [[Category:(({Nationality))} physicians]]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It seems a bit confusing to have the name "Fooian doctors" for some categories and "Fooian physicians" for others. On the other hand, the Category:Australian doctors says that in the British Commonwealth countries, "doctor" is the more common term. So frankly, I'm a bit confused. I think a single, standardized term to fit the Category:Physicians by nationality would make searching easier, but perhaps some of you will disagree. I look forward to your input. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly object - if any cognisance of the difference between in meaning of the term Doctor and Physician in the Australian context is under consideration - such a conflation is close to absurd. There are two different levels of operation, training and status within the medical community - and I am sure the same is most other contexts - single standardising is ignoring the fact there are two different statuses and levels of expertise. Please reconsider and perhaps research the issue more before suggesting such a change. Thank you SatuSuro 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object. In Australia (and New Zealand) a doctor and physician are different fish as SatuSuro states and I am sure that the same is the case in some of the other countries listed. Doctor and Physician are terms whose meaning is geographically dependent and a blanket change does not make sense. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could we have some references to the claim that they are different in NZ and Australia. they are not in most countries, wexcept thatthe term doctor is used from many other professions as well, and those are intended to be separated here. DGG (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Australia and NZ a physician is usually defined per the Royal Australasian College of Physicians definition as a medical specialist. While doctor does also refer to someone with a PhD, in general use it ties with the dept of immigration definition of a medical doctor - Peripitus (Talk) 02:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment If you really want to get technical, "doctor" can refer to anyone who has earned a doctorate in any field of study (not just medicine). That is why I thought of making this change in the first place. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 09:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Royal Australian College of Physicians a physician is a doctor who has undertaken additional 8 years of training to become a specialist in a particular field of medicine. This is the way Australians use the English language and I presume that its association with Brittish crown colonies is the same influencing reason for the other countries also having the distinction, any change would be a clear WP:BIAS towards US terminology. Gnangarra 11:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • for clarity this edit alerted me of the issues but it wasnt until after it RACP was mention on WP:AWNB that I decided to added the link and express an opinion, closing admin may wish to discount my opinion but the link is still a clear indication of the difference between the terms. Gnangarra 11:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - how about changing doctor to 'medical doctor' throughout this category tree? (Physician seems to have different meanings in different countries, which arguably makes it unsuitable as a name for the parent.) Occuli (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Occuli's suggestions is a good one - as the earlier comment by Eastlaw is indeed a problem and a real one - PhD's can be indeed called doctor and they can have no connection with medical science at all SatuSuro 13:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IN Australian terms General Practitioner, Physician, Surgeon, for the medical profession would be reasonable cats as subcats of medical doctor Gnangarra 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Occuli's suggestion of using "medical doctor" in place of "physician" or "doctor" is actually a pretty good solution. It avoids ambiguity while still being specific. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all using "medical doctors" per Occuli. I'm fairly sure this issue has come up before, btw. We should do Category:Physicians by nationality and Category:Physicians too. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it has -- and I just located that discussion, which culminated in the creation of Category:Physician-politicians. On the whole, I think I would support renaming most of these categories per Occuli's suggestion, though not the one I just referenced. Cgingold (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose original suggestion. Obviously, the reason for having "Fooian doctors" for some categories and "Fooian physicians" for others is that is some countires there is a distinction between the two. With that in mind, and taking note of Gnangarra's suggestion regarding Australian subcats, I support Occuli's proposal that instead, the categories are renamed to "medical doctors". --AussieLegend (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and make no changes to any category names. By the (admittedly low) standards of CfD, this discussion has actually come some way to making a half decent solution, in so far as after some disagreement, there at least seems to be acceptance that "doctor" and "physician" in some parts of the world are not synonyms. (Why a cite was needed to prove this, when the opposing claim merely needed assertion is another question). However, this progress has only come part way towards an acceptable solution. Now we have the "compromise" solution of using the term "medical doctors". Aside from being an entirely invented term (indeed the subject of mockery when actually used, see "I should talk to some medical doctors"), not in use anywhere that I know of, in Australian usage at least it comes across as a bit of an absurdity—a little like saying "legal lawyer" or "cooking chef"; i.e. a statement of the obvious and entirely unnecessary as a disambiguating term. The best solution is, of course, is to leave well enough alone and accept that different jurisdictions have different names for a similar role. Consistency between child categories should not over-ride common sense and simplicity. Sadly, per CfD precedent it probably will. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, them's some bitter lemons ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think my views on CfD have ever been a secret. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bitter lemons—out of the closet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is about the categories not the editor. Please refrain from making personal remarks to any editor(s). Bidgee (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was a comment about a specific comment. Mattingbgn made the comment; if that user takes exception to the comment, then I'm sure the user is capable of telling me. Otherwise I won't refrain from making comments about comments in a discussion. Have some fun, and let's not take everything so seriously. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Mattinbgn's comment (Really I don't see the point in saying the very same thing and really I couldn't have said it any better). Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point is that it isn't the same thing as there are doctors who are not medical doctors, which is already explained above.[1] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When holders of PhDs and the like in fields other than medicine routinely start to state their profession as "doctor", I will be first in line to support a disambiguation. However, in common usage—at least in Australia—the usage of the term to mean holder of a doctorate is dwarfed by the standard usage; i.e. a medical professional generally in possession of a MBBS. The upside of disambiguating the term to avoid an ambiguity that barely exists is outweighed by the downside of using a clumsy, entirely invented, redundant term. The word "train" has multiple meanings but we don't see the need to disambiguate Category:Trains to Category:Railroad Trains, and rightly so as the ordinary usage of the term "train" far outstrips other usage. The same applies to the term doctor; at least in Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed - if someone does say they're a "doctor" when they mean PhD, it'd ALWAYS be suffixed by of/in and what in - eg "doctor of laws", "doctor of philosophy" etc. Orderinchaos 10:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on medical doctor. I think "medical doctor" is commonly used in countries where people hold the degree of MD. U.S., Canada for sure but not Australia or the UK. I think in this sense it's more of an American term than a good universal substitute. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Medical doctor is certainly used in the UK, as distinct from the holder of a doctorate. There are far more PhD holders than there are medical doctors. Holders of PhDs call themselves Dr XXX, people say are you a doctor, and one responds yes but not a medical one. Occuli (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's only a standard term in the Uk for distinguishing purposes as Occuli (sorry Dr. Occuli) says, but it is entirely clear, whereas "physician" sounds American. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds like it could work in the US and UK context, but perhaps not in some of the other countries of the English-speaking world, judging by the Australian users' comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the British holder of a PhD, I have the title Dr, but only use it in an academic contesxt (and a few others), because the general public assume that Dr means a medic. They obtain an MD in the course of qualifying. Surgeons have traditionally reverted to Mr on qulaifying as a surgeon (though they are all doctors too). I think the equivalent of the Australian usage here would be consultant physician. No doubt practice had diverged between Britian and Commonwelath countries due to the National Health Service. On the primary question, the proposed change would be misleading. Since usage varies from country to country, so must WP categorisation. This means that some subcategories would not match theri parents, but that cannot be helped. I would not object to "medical doctor", if that is the consensus. However, in Britain, medical would only be included as a disambiguator. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Souqs. Kbdank71 14:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Souk to Category:Souq

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: I'm fine with renaming, but does it need to be pluralized, or does this function as a plural in Arabic, the way some English words do? From my admittedly limited knowledge of Arabic, I kind of doubt that's the case -- and our article uses an Anglicized form of pluralization: souqs. Cgingold (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Souqs - seems right to me. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Automotive market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete OCAT. Only one subcategory is in this category and it does not appear to meet any reasonable definition of a market. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename as creator/only editor request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arizona Supreme Court judges to Category:Arizona Supreme Court justices

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The judges of this court are referred to as "justices". I made a mistake when creating the category. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:51, 19 February 2009 (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.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus on a word to replace "cities", but consensus to replace "defunct" with "former". There appears to be agreement that "former cities" is insufficiently inclusive of the different types of settlement. However, there is no consensus on what term to use in its place, and significant problems were raised with all suggested alternatives. CFD participants may to wish to discuss the issue and open a fresh CFD with a revised proposal. The list of changes that will be made as a result of this CFD is:

Category:Defunct cities in Connecticut to Category:Former cities in Connecticut

Category:Defunct cities in Massachusetts to Category:Former cities in Massachusetts

Category:Defunct cities in Michigan to Category:Former cities in Michigan

Category:Defunct cities in Missouri to Category:Former cities in Missouri

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former cities in the United States to Category:Former settlements in the United States

Category:Defunct cities in Connecticut to Category:Former settlements in Connecticut

Category:Former cities in Iowa to Category:Former settlements in Iowa

Category:Former cities in Kansas to Category:Former settlements in Kansas

Category:Defunct cities in Massachusetts to Category:Former settlements in Massachusetts

Category:Defunct cities in Michigan to Category:Former settlements in Michigan Category:Former cities in Michigan

Category:Defunct cities in Missouri to Category:Former settlements in Missouri

Category:Abandoned communities in Oklahoma to Category:Former settlements in Oklahoma

Category:Former cities in Nebraska to Category:Former settlements in Nebraska

Category:Former municipalities in Ohio to Category:Former settlements in Ohio

Category:Former cities in Texas to Category:Former settlements in Texas

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category includes more then cities so use the broader settlement name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom for reasons stated. It seems the subcats also need to be renamed to encompass all their contents. Hmains (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping the other nominator of the one subcategory would do it. Since they did not, I'm adding them here. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure about the other states, but I oppose renaming Category:Defunct cities in Michigan to Category:Former settlements in Michigan -- "Former settlements" implies that these no longer exist -- period. The intent of the defunct cities category is to group those entities which are no longer separately incorporated, that is, they have either disincorporated or have been annexed or merged with another municipality. If finer gradations are needed, there are options available other than relabeling all into a confusing mass. For example there is also Category:Defunct villages in Michigan, Category:Defunct townships in Michigan, and Category:Ghost towns in Michigan. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone wants to break these out into subcategories that define why they no longer exist, that would be acceptable if they are adequately populated. However, this should all roll up into former settlements. Why is defunct a better description of a place that was merged or no longer separately incorporated? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because many of these actually do continue to exist as settlements -- they may no longer be a particular type of municipality. There is a difference. "Former settlements" implies that they do not exist. If you want to suggest standardizing on "Former cities in X" rather than "Defunct cities in X", rather than inappropriately generalizing them all to settlements, that would be OK with me, although personally I think defunct is a more technically accurate term than former to refer to the status of a place as a municipal corporation. older ≠ wiser 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support these are broader than "cities", and the name ought to reflect that fact; as for "defunct" in reference to American settlements, that appears to be a Wiki-ism where "former" is by far the more common usage and subsumes "abandoned" and "ghost" whereas "defunct" seems more like bankrupt (perhaps we're talking about Vallejo, California, which is indeed bankrupt but neither former nor abandoned). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in part. I agree with Bkonrad; there are really two separate things being categorized here. But I don't agree with the use of the word "defunct." "Former municipalities in X" should be used for incorporated settlements that are no longer incorporated, and "Former settlements in X" should be used for settlements of any kind that no longer exist as settlements. This leaves open the possibility that a single article may be categorized as both a former municipality and a former settlement, or just one of those. Postdlf (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was a need to split a settlement category, then adding something like Category:Former incorporated settlements would be reasonable. Right now, I'm not convinced that we have that many and the city categories were littered with unincorporated and other then city settlements. So the moves would fix those problems and allow for a city recreation when needed with subcategories following the now clearly established naming convention. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remain opposed to renaming Category:Defunct cities in Michigan to Category:Former settlements in Michigan -- this category is about cities that are no longer cities and is not about former settlements. IMO, the category Former settlements in Foo is inherently vague and ambiguous. I could go along with renaming it to Category:Former cities in Michigan. But I'm really not sure there is much value in having such a vague and ambiguous parent category. older ≠ wiser 01:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I have changed that one to your compromise suggestion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well that addresses the specific concern -- but I still think the name Former settlements in Foo is hopelessly ambiguous and misleading. A former municipality is not at all the same as a former settlement. older ≠ wiser 13:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Former municipalities in the United States and "Former municipalities in _____" on the state level, for reasons already mentioned: it's good to have a category for places that were once incorporated but aren't now. Two exceptions: "Former cities in Iowa" and "Former cities in Kansas", for those two states have no municipalities except for cities. Bkonrad is the Michigan expert, so I'll defer to him; but to me it would seem more reasonable to have Category:Former municipalities in Michigan, so that we could reasonably include any former villages in the category as well. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with having Category:Former municipalities in Michigan as a parent category for Category:Former cities in Michigan and Category:Former village in Michigan and perhaps even Category:Former townships in Michigan. I think there is value in being able be more specific about the municipality type. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Bkonrad and Nyttend - "former settlements" is totally misleading. I live in Stambaugh, Michigan when I'm not in college; is that a 'former settlement'? Well, there are be a few uninhabited/abandoned buildings, but nothing to make it a 'former settlement'. It's still a separate part in all but the official name, though everyone there still calls it Stambaugh. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using the "Former municipalities" scheme, and let the more specific types of municipality (as well as the ghost towns cats) be subcategories. I prefer the use of "settlement" that seems to already be standard on Wikipedia, but because of the concerns expressed here that "former settlement" implies "ghost town", let's go with "former municipality". Ntsimp (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Municipalities does not work since it does not cover the broad range of settlement types. It can be added as a valid subcategory when called for. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2009 (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.