< January 10 January 12 >

January 11

Category:Fictional sexists

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. -Splash - tk 23:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. A loaded term that is really only categorizable through conjecture about the topics. I also don't really see a reason why we need this category. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted two of them per CSD G7 (requested by Censored Scribe) and categorised the rest. De728631 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd toss in Category:Fictional characters with nuclear abilities as well. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:04, 15 January 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:Accredited Naturopathic medical schools

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:Naturopathic medical schools accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education. -Splash - tk 23:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to identify the accrediting organization. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 11 January 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:Royal Audiences of the Spanish Empire

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:Real Audiencias. -Splash - tk 23:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Talk:Real Audiencia of Charcas. "Audience" is a translation that entirely fell out of favor by 1900 according to Google ngrams and has basically never been seen since - they're called "Audiencias" in English for the past 110 years. Additionally there were no Audiencias in other empires, so "Spanish Empire" is redundant. "Royal Audiencias" is also reasonable but still not preferred by me; vanilla "Audiencias" is also sort of fine, albeit at minor risk of confusion with the Audiencia Nacional (Spain).

If this category move goes through, I intend to move the other articles in this category - some of which used to be at "Real Audiencia" before being moved to "Royal Audience" - back to "Real Audiencia," as was done with the Real Audiencia of Charcas move above.) SnowFire (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Royal Audiencia and Chancillería of Valladolid is currently in this category and existed before the unification of Spain, so yes, those Iberian audiencias are currently included. As for Mexican "real audiencias" I don't know anything about them, but if they did exist, they are considered so insignificant as to not merit a hatnote at the real audiencia article nor a Wikipedia article in general. This isn't surprising, as the first Mexican Empire lasted a mere 2 years, and the Second lasted only 3 while never even controlling large swathes of Mexico. Seems too minor, I highly doubt articles on institutions that would have been short-lived at best, or else renamed to something non "royal" post restoration of the Republic and thus rightfully placed in some other category ("courts of Mexico"), would matter too much. SnowFire (talk) 01:31, 13 January 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:Mid-level medical practitioners

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. -Splash - tk 23:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only two pages and no potential for growth. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's a term created by organized medicine to attempt to define non-physician providers as less than a physician. It is a controversial and inaccurate term that has fallen into disfavor amongst many groups and organizations. Similar to another such term: physician extender. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: In what way is it inaccurate? Bwrs (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While PAs practice medicine, NPs do not. They practice nursing. That's one inaccuracy. The other is, "mid" of what? NPs are not in the middle of something. They practice advanced practice nursing. Only physicians and PAs practice medicine.jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:26, 15 January 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:Congregationalist clergy

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 per nomination. De728631 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, as "minister" is the term used within Congregational churches. See similar precedents for Baptist ministers, Methodist ministers and Presbyterian ministers. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 11 January 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:Solidarity MSPs

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. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small category unlikely to expand, not clear that Solidarity is properly functioning these days. PatGallacher (talk) 13:26, 11 January 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:Schweisser albums

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, or follow Jerry's advice.... -Splash - tk 23:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only a single page in this category and since the main article about the band Schweisser is just an unsourced stub, the category is probably not going to be populated anytime soon. De728631 (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Category:Albums by artist which states "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, I am aware of where I am. I was suggesting a course of action for the nominator or other interested party. Not sure how that was confusing. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jerry, I like your line of thought. So far I've only found a single professional review for Pororoca [1] which is why I have now redirected the album page to the band's article. That leaves us with an empty category. De728631 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 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.
More