Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 8

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Atlantic (magazine) to Category:The Atlantic

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note If the result is "keep", then I will nominate the article at

WP:RM. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. "The Atlantic" is ambiguous, I would expect it to refer to the Atlantic Ocean. The fact that Category:The Atlantic is a disambiguation category shows that. — ξ^xplicit 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move the article too; although I rather like
  talk) 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and if and when there is an RM, The Atlantic should redirect to Atlantic Ocean. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Er..keep (cat creator). When I created it I anticipated that "The Atlantic" could likely be confused with Category:Atlantic Ocean by less experienced WP users/readers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename article -- If we have a consensus on that here, the closing Admin should be able to do it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2011 (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 per nom. Consistency in naming wins here. Ruslik_Zero 15:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:ACS journals → Category:American Chemical Society academic journals
• Category:BioMed Central journals → Category:BioMed Central academic journals
• Category:CSIRO Publishing journals → Category:CSIRO Publishing academic journals
• Category:Institute of Physics journals → Category:Institute of Physics academic journals
• Category:Japan Society of Applied Physics journals → Category:Japan Society of Applied Physics academic journals
• Category:NRC Research Press journals → Category:NRC Research Press academic journals
• Category:Nature Publishing Group journals → Category:Nature Publishing Group academic journals
• Category:Optical Society of America journals → Category:Optical Society of America academic journals
• Category:Polish Academy of Sciences journals → Category:Polish Academy of Sciences academic journals

Reason: Consistency within

• Support with one tweak: "Nature Publishing Group academic journals". --Crusio (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- adding "academic" is unnecessary, since the publishers are all unlikely to publish any other kind. I see no reason for italicising Publishing. Arguably Nature might be but I do not think this necessary or desirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The italics in "publishing" was to indicate the difference with the original proposal, since corrected. Adding "academic" will make these categories consistent with the vast majority of other categories dealing with academic journals. It will also remove any ambiguity: these categories are for academic journals, the Wall Street Journal is not intended to be part of this... In addition, the proposal is about more than just adding "academic": it also intends to correct the names of the involved publishers. :-) --Crusio (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, most of these have been created by me, at the wrong location. I meant to create them at "Foobar academic journals" but realize it too late. So I brought it at CFD for discussion and bot support.
  books} 23:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose. Gratuitously long and cumbersome. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As opposed to gratuitously
  books} 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You know what they say about a foolish consistency. Do these publishers have categories of journals that are not academic journals? No? Then what's the point of including that word in the category name? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (EC with below post) Yes? For example, Elsevier publishes academic journals, trade magazines, regular magazines... The consistency here would not be foolish, all the categories were named this way on January 4, except I think three. On January 4, I created ~6 of them at the wrong name because of a brain fart. Inconstancy here is what seems to be foolish. There's no reason why
      books} 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • So we can have a category for Elsevier magazines as well as one for Elsevier journals. That doesn't make "academic" less redundant. And if a publisher did need to have its academic journals disambiguated from some other kind of journal, we can use "academic journals" for that publisher without having to impose the same disambiguation on the other publishers, just as we don't disambiguate article titles unless they are actually ambiguous. That was why I brought in the part about foolish consistency: I don't think consistency requires us to disambiguate everything when most things are already unambiguous. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Academic is not redundant in the least. The categories are for
          books} 00:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • "Journal" by itself may be ambiguous, but that doesn't imply that "academic" is non-redundant in the context of these categories. We're unlikely to have categories for personal diaries or local newspapers published by the Nature Publishing Group, so there is no danger of confusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Likewise
              books} 00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
              ]

• (unindent) Comment A while ago I started to include "academic" in all new categories that I created for journal articles. The reason is that, even though it may seem redundant to academics like us, it is not to most other editors. I've had lots of discussion with people protesting that I categorized a certain article in a "magazine" cat, because the periodical had the word "journal" in the title. Many newspapers do, too (Wall Street Journal, for example). There are publishers that have newspapers, magazines and academic journals in their portfolio (Elsevier and the owners of Nature Publishing Group -Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group- for example). Naming these categories more clearly would help making things clearer to editors not familiar with this project, IMHO. --Crusio (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and remove "academic" from the other categories. Crusio, I understand what you were thinking, but I think adding "academic" to newly created categories in an established category tree was a mistake. A better tack might have been nominating the established categories to add "academic."--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...but the category tree is already established with the "academic" in it!? I fucked up and created the new ones without the academic. If you remove the 6 I created by mistake on January 4, there were 46 categories. Of these, 40 had "academic journals", 3 had "journals", and 3 had "publications [as they are slightly larger than simply academic journals]". Post fuck-up, the count changed to 42/9/3. If I didn't fuck up, it would have been 46/3/3, and we'd be renaming the three weirdos.

books} 21:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, I see. OK, revising my comment to Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Consistency with Category:Academic journals by publisher would seem to mean something like Category:BioMed Central journals → Category:Academic journals by BioMed Central. Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (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:Lists of United States populated places by ethnic group. I chose a title that I like the most to break this stalemate. If someone has better ideas they can start a new CFD. Ruslik_Zero 14:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Previous CfD closed with consensus for renaming but with no consensus as to the new name. Relisting as suggested. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Rename (Requires article moves):

this one to be moved to Category:Ethnic enclaves in the United States (or subcats) so maybe there's a better rename out there.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment "Large" is POV. Actually every place has a 100% ehtnic population, assuming that every one has an ethnicity. I assume we are talking about places with a "non-European ethnic majority"; if so the category name should be along those lines. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I noted in the original CfD that the concept of "ethnic populations" is problematic and is perhaps the result of the widespread tendency for people to use the word "ethnic" only to refer to ethnic minorities. I should have probably reposted that here before now. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though they are not all non-European. There are Polish and Hungarian articles in the category. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a difficult one. RevelationDirect's suggestion makes the most sense. Categories of ethnic majorities is clear and precise. The "large population" categories should be move to the "ethnic enclaves" category or deleted. On the other hand, as Cordless Larry mentions, using "ethnic" to refer only to "ethnic minorities" is problematic, unless we're going to create List of U.S. cities with majority WASP populations or List of U.S. cities with majority anglophone populations, or what have you. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think "ethnic enclave" is appropriate for the category name, because the simple fact that a community has a large number of a particular ethnic group doesn't necessarily mean that they all live together in a "neighbourhood, district, or suburb which retains some cultural distinction." postdlf (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lists of U.S. locations with majority ethnic populations or Category:Lists of United States locations with majority ethnic populations with the latter preferred since it follows naming conventions. At present there is no clear best solution, but this would be an improvement. This addresses some of the problems and does not prevent a future rename if a better name surfaces. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment The current title is a widely-used form of nonsense: everyone has an ethnicity, so 100% of every area has an ethnic population. (Just noticed that Peterkingiron made that point above, but it's worth repeating). I think that what is intended is to refer to communities which are numerically dominated by an ethnic group which is in a minority in the US as a whole.
  None of the proposed renames solves the problem so far: RevelationDirect's suggestion of "ethnic majority" is much better than the current usage, though it could be read as assuming that "ethnic" applies only to non-majority groups, and raising that perspective highlight the wider problem that as a collection these lists are racially-biased to select non-white groups (where's the list of WASP cities?). The fact that the non-list categories are called "ethnic enclaves" suggests to me that there is a much wider problem of terminology in this area of wikipedia: describing an area where one group is in a majority as an "enclave" seems to me to be highly prejudicial terminology. I expect that categorising Beverly Hills as a "white enclave" would generate a furore ... so why is this language being used for non-white areas? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In American English, "ethnic" often refers to the national origin of white people (Italian, Irish, German Americans) but I've never heard it applied to white people generally. I don't know if that helps or hurts my suggestion of going with majorities but I'm not even sure it's the best solution, just better than what's there now. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a robust definition and a more appropriate name can be provided. So far no one has. "Large" is subjective and cannot be allowed in a category. If the object is to identify places with a majority of Blacks or a majority of Hispanics, we might have the basis of two categories, but a place with 30% blacks and 30% Hispanics has two substantial ethnic minorities, not an ethnic majority. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment when I created this category I took the articles from Category:Demographics of the United States where they will all go back to if this category is deleted--which already had too many disparate articles. I took the list articles that were about populated places having this or that ethnic majority. I did not write those articles and did not define what was considered 'ethnic'--I just took what I found. Other articles were about 'large' populations of certain ethnic groups in populated places. Some articles use 10,000 as the cutoff; some use 100,000; some use other cutoffs. Again, I took whatever list articles there were and put them into this category. No one seems to be complaining about the articles being named with 'large': the contentns of the article define what 'large' is in each case. The lists had and have the common thread of ethnicity in American demographics. Perhaps a better name would be Category:Lists of U.S. populated places by ethnic group or Category:Lists of U.S. populated places with minority majorities (here one must remove the 'large' lists from this group) Hmains (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lists of populated places in the United States by demographics. I think this covers the intent of the categories without making a claim about who exactly is covered in each article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2011 (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: procedural close. There's no reason raised against this, but CfD doesn't really approve things like this out of the gate. It's better discussed on a WikiProject page. If you do this, use "movement" rather than "movement." --Mike Selinker (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: In the Category:Poets category create a new category Category:Poets by time period (similar to Category:Writers by time period) and move some categories from the Category:Poets category - Category:Ancient Greek poets, Category:Roman era poets, Category:Medieval poets. --Averaver (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New category Category:Poets by movements

Proposal: In the Category:Poets category create a new category Category:Poets by movements and move some categories - Category:Beat Generation poets, Category:Symbolist poets, Category:Objectivist poets, Category:Slam poets, Category:Spoken word poets, Category:Surrealist poets, Category:War poets, Category:Formalist poets, Category:Imagists, Category:Modernist poets, Category:Oral poets, Category:Romantic poets. Add a new category into the Category:Poetry movements category. --Averaver (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be "by movement', not "by movements", but it is not really a topic for this process page. Better to suggest this somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry Page. --Averaver (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of "leaving a message" there - the wholee debate should be there. Categories aren't created through CfD! Grutness...wha? 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New category Category:Writers by movements

Proposal: In the Category:Writers category create a new category Category:Writers by movements and move some categories - Category:Beat Generation writers, Category:Cyberpunk writers, Category:Imagists, Category:Minimalist writers, Category:Symbolist writers, Category:Renaissance writers, Category:Surrealist writers. Add a new category into the Category:Literary movements category. --Averaver (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As above, that would be "by movement', not "by movements", but it is not really a topic for this process page. Better to suggest this somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature Page. --Averaver (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native inhibitants of Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Misspellt name. Furthermore, it seems to be a pov category. Soman (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as proposed And it has no parent categories, either in "Tamil Nadu" or in "Indigenous peoples of India/South Asia". See Vedda who are indigenous. Could the articles all be subcategories (if appropriate) of Category:Indigenous peoples of India Hugo999 (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2011 (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. No objection raised.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Clan Macaulay of Lewis to Category:Macaulay family of Lewis

Nominator's rationale: To match the article Macaulay family of Lewis, and to differentiate it further from Clan MacAulay (which is a recognised Scottish clan). As far as I know, the Lewis family never had a chief who bore a coat of arms that showed his rank among his peers, like the others listed at List of Scottish clans. The chiefs of Clan MacAulay did though, that's why they're listed as a clan in books on the subject, but funnily enough I think the Lewis Macaulays have been written about more. So I think the cat should be renamed and it should go into Category:Scottish families rather than Category:Scottish clans.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2011 (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 delete per

G1: empty category. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Wikipedia expand-section box with explanation text (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category tracks certain uses of the {{

expand-section}} template. The category page states "We will probably remove this logging from the template and delete this category some weeks from now, when we have studied the existing cases out there." That was in March 2009. I don't think this category is really helping anyone anymore. This is the sort of list I would expect to be generated by a bot, and placed on someone's user subpage. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: temporary category to inform discussion on modification of a maintenance template, discussion long since concluded, so category redundant (unless somebody suddenly thinks up some new reason why we desperately need it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts -- simply remove the code for this category from the template (needs to be done anyway) & speedy the category once empty. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The code has been removed, so the category should evaporate of its own accord. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:23, 8 January 2011 (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: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dermatology journals to Category:Dermatologic journals

Nominator's rationale: I started the

WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the Category:Dermatology subcategories use the term "Dermatologic"; therefore, I am proposing this rename to maintain this convention. At this time, almost all the dermatology subcategories already use the term "Dermatologic". ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment A concern I would have is the category would not match others in Category:Medical journals. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Was going to support but Andy Walsh gives a good point. Should the other journals also be renamed (hematologic, immunologic, radiologic etc.)? Would there hence need to be a more global discussion on all the other journals? ogy vs ogic? Dermatologic makes sense to me although for some reason I feel I hear dermatology more often. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the reason stated by Andy Walsh. Would we rename "neuroscience journals" to neuroscientific" journals? "Geography journals" to "geographic journals"? I see the same thing with other cats in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization: "dermatologic society" just doesn't sound all that good to me. --Crusio (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Regardless of how either choice "sounds," in terms of English grammar, is one preferable over the other? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Looking at the grammar, I'd say "Dermatologic(al)" sounds more professional. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Also, looking at what has been done outside Wikipedia with the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System, more specifically ATC code D, "dermatological" could also be an option. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—the "-ic" sound is English at its least attractive, isn't it. Tony (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Crusio. The convention is "discipline + journals". AKA hematology journals, physics journals, astronomy journals, etc., and thus dermatology journals.
  books} 09:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per Headbomb and Crusio. The current naming system is the standard nomenclature. (I assume Headbomb meant "discipline + journal"...) — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per others, and on the basis of good English.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm wouldn't it be dermatological... ? Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Oppose I am reluctant to oppose an expert of whom I think very highly, but it is more important to be consistent with the other journal categories than with the other dermatology categories. With some exceptions, the name of the field is used rather than the adjective: consider the ambiguity of "educational journals" (aren't all journals educational) or "physical journals" (which now usually means those in paper format). The exceptions are usually for very general subjects, such as " medical journals". There are are few which ere equally likely : both "chemistry journal" and "chemical journal". Journals where more than one word is needed are never use the adjective: "internal medical journals"is never used, nor "organic chemical journals".And there's a third form possible in some cases: "botanic journals" is as good as "botanical journal" or "botany journals" I short, I think the present wording is clearer in the absence of evidence for standard use otherwise DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't take any of this opposition personally; this is what CfD's are for. Having said that, with regard to the other subcategories of Category:Dermatology, would you also recommend the use of "Dermatology" over "Dermatologic"? If so, given the above consensus, I think those could easily be renamed. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – I agree with DGG's well-argued case that consistency within the large
  talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• oppose but let's ask dermatologists. I would guess they say "I read dermatology journals" not dermatologic. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see the reasoning for wanting consistency with all the categorized dermatology sub-categories; however, in this instance, I also feel that the consistency should be maintained at the Wikipedia-wide level as is seen with the other journal categories currently present. Calmer Waters 14:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Discipline + "journal" is much better. If there are exceptions, they should be moved to conform with this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Project level consistency please. Leo 03:50, 12 January 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:YouTube video producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am not convinced that category belongs. YouTube does not have producers, does it? I agree that for some individuals, this could be defining. But based on the current contents which includes a lot more then individuals, we have a good example of how this subjective criteria for inclusion will make the current form unmaintainable. If deleted, recreation could be allowed with better inclusion criteria. If kept it needs a new name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: To Category:YouTube content providers or something similar. There are some producers of YouTube content for music videos and some semi-professional shows like this one. But I think what the cat is really getting at is "producers" in the sense that they are notable for producing content. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Background: It looks like, way back in 2007, the consensus was to keep this cat and get rid of Category:Youtubers. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, and that discussion did not say anything about the contents. It was an approval after moving the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, I incorrectly summarized that earlier precedural discussion.. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I don't care what the category is called, but it needs to exist. There are a large number of individuals who obviously belong together in a category because they produce videos on YouTube. —Lowellian (reply) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin:
    talk) 02:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Well, categories should be for defining characteristics of these individuals. Simply doing something does not sound defining to me. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- They fact that a person has posted a clip on Youtube will rarely be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like another in a long line of "internet users" categories, like "people who Twitter", "people that use MySpace", "people with 5000 friends on Facebook" etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]