Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 28 March 30 >

March 29

Category:Academic journals produced by university presses

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Produced" makes me think of type-setting, printing, binding, etc. "Publishing" is much more appropriate in this context. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support w/ clarification note on category (see below) - See my response to the related "Academic journals produced by scholarly societies" category below. However, I would note that my rationale is weaker in this category, since university presses are probably more likely to publish their own journals, whereas scholarly societies are very likely to publish with a commercial publisher. --Lquilter (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (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:Academic journals produced by learned societies

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. I'm aware that there's no hair so fine we can't split it, but that doesn't mean we should always do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Produced" makes me think of type-setting, printing, binding, etc. "Publishing" is much more appropriate in this context. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support w/ clarification note on category (see below) - I don't care all that much, but I went with "produced" deliberately. To me, "published" specifically means edited/prepped for printing; whereas "produced" might mean editorial control, calls for publication, etc. Since many scholarly societies "produce" journals that are then "published" elsewhere (universities; university presses; commercial publishers; their own society presses; even libraries), I thought "produced" would be a better indicator of the broad possibilities of responsibility for the journal. --Lquilter (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's the other way around. We call companies like Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell "publishers" and what they do is "publishing". Things like prepping stuff for printing, printing, mailing, etc. are almost invariably contracted out to other companies in India or Malaysia. They call that "sending stuff to production"... Editing and such is what falls under "publishing". So learned societies publish journals and subcontract the actual production to others. --Randykitty (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understand the distinction you are making. But scholarly societies also very often contract with professional publishers. So the scholarly society holds the copyright, does the editorial, and so forth; the professional publisher does the marketing, (technical) production, and coordination of printing & shipping. So a journal will often be "produced" (in the broad sense) by multiple entities, including a commercial publisher, a printer, and a scholarly society. The distinction that I worry will be blurred here is that "published" might refer to, say, either Wiley (commercial publisher) or Scholarly Society X (which "owns" the journal). So a journal might well be considered to be "published" by two separate entities. The principal editorial function of calling for papers and selecting them is the really key and useful distinction, and that's what's not necessarily clear in the term "publishing". --Lquilter (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looked at that way, things always may be less than absolutely clear. I have been editor of a journal myself. It was jointly owned by a major publisher and a learned society. As editor, I was responsible to a "management committee" composed of 2 representatives of each. Once an article had gone through the editorial process, it was sent to "production", which the publisher had contracted out to an Indian company (typesetting) and a Malaysian one (printing and shipping). The publisher provided not only marketing, but also the website used for manuscript handling and review. In addition, they provided assistance with problem papers (possible cases of plagiarism/scientific misconduct, etc), basically providing all the publishing experience that the society didn't have. In any case, I've never seen a society claim that they "produce" a journal, they always say that they "publish" one, sometimes in collaboration with a publisher. I think this category should be for society journals where no separate publisher is involved. In the case of "my" journal, it was obvious that the major publishing effort came from the publisher, with the society being limited to the selection of the editor and suggestions for editorial board members. So that one, I'd definitely would categorize as "academic journals published by FOO publisher", not in this category. Perhaps we should add a clarification at the top of this cat specifying this. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a clarification note on the category would be very helpful, noting that "published" can mean multiple things, and the individual title should be looked at to see if it is more properly referred to as "published by" the scholarly society or some other entity. Happy to support change to the more commonly used term now. Thanks for working to figure out my concern & a solution. --Lquilter (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Economic History Review is one of those journals that Lquilter and I discussed above and that should not be included in this category at all. It is published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Economic History Society. This means that the society has a contract with WB, who handle the complete process of publication, from the technical aspects of editing (peer-review website and such) to producing the actual PDFs, journal website, and print version of the journal (the actual printing probably being subcontracted to another, specialized company). According to the society website, the editor of the journal is a member of the executive committee of the society, so they probably select the editor and that's the end of the society's involvement. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But there are definitely a lot of models. Societies whose journals preexisted publishers may maintain much more editorial control over the content of the journals; technical and business support from the "publisher" notwithstanding. Wiley Blackwell publishes English Literary Renaissance, as well, and there the editorial board runs the content end of the show. At any rate, I think the scope note can help. It may be the case that some journals will simply be "published by" in more than one category. --Lquilter (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People will find this discussion User_talk:DGG#Predatory_journals and the NYT article linked very relevant. I still think that societies "publish" journals, even if jointly, & even if effective control is slipping from their grasp into the hands of the publishers. Many journals, including the The Economic History Review will belong both in this category and the publisher's one, as long as the society allows their name to be used. "Produced" is just that bit more unclear, & helps nothing. Who handles the online edition that is often now the most important for journals with no big publisher involved is a whole different can of worms, but we can't cover everything by categories. In practice choosing the editor and agreeing the budget are the main methods of control whoever "owns" a journal, & always have been. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (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:Egyptological journals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make name consistent with all others in the academic journals tree (e.g., this category falls under "History journals" not a "Historical journals"). Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2013 (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:Things named after Leonardo da Vinci

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES and many previous discussions, we don't categorize things that are named after a particular person. No objection if someone wants to listify the category first. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:18, 29 March 2013 (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.

Game of Thrones (TV series)

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. The indefinite article is not enough to guarantee disambiguation.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the main article, which was moved from
Game of Thrones (TV series) to Game of Thrones.  Sandstein  12:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Speedy rename per C2D. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since the novel and TV series are named after the term, and the term is used itself in the TV series and the novel, in keeping with its actual meaning (kingmaking, infighting, succession crises, etc) this seems like the article should be reverted, and the category kept the way it is, while someone properly disambiguate to the real life topics of the game of thrones. (which should exist on the disambiguation page, but are completely missing) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with the above that the article and not the category should be renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Renaming the article was done after talk page discussion without opposition. The novel and the TV series have distinct titles ("A Game of Thrones" vs. "Game of Thrones"), and so the additional parenthetical disambiguator is not needed to distinguish them. There is, as far as I know, no term "Game of Thrones" that preceded the novel; Martin appears to have invented the catchphrase. Consequently, there are no other "Game of Thrones" articles that would need disambiguating, other than those related to the novels and TV series.  Sandstein  19:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no formal
    WP:RM proposal, only a discussion among regular editors of the article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2013 (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.

Soviet space program vs programme

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 "program." This isn't unanimous, but there is a strong desire in the comments to standardize, and it's weighted more heavily on the American English side.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option One: standardize on Program.
Option Two: standardise on Programme.
Nominator's rationale The top-level category,
WP:ENGVAR within a single country-topic intersection on one or the other. While that may or may not be the case for articles, the categories need to be standardised on one or the other, and that is the subject of this discussion: option one standardises on 'Program' per the top-level parent category for the nation, while option two would change all to 'Programme'. Note that I am neutral on which should be preferred, but one or the other is needed. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Programme is the more widespread option, so if there is a consensus to make a change we should change to that, however I don't see the harm in leaving it as it is compared to the potential sh!tstorm that could accompany a change of this nature. At the end of the day other programmes are still going to be using different dialects, and complete standardisation is impossible because we can't have "British space program" or "US space programme", so I think partial standardisation, for one part of the structure, could do more harm than good. --W. D. Graham 15:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take a look at, which categories are proposed to be renamed? They are all related to the space program of the Soviet Union. There are no other nations represented. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was if you can't standardise universally, doing it on a smaller scale will cause all of the problems and carry few of the benefits. --W. D. Graham 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename #1 using "program" throughout.
    Oculi (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
By that logic, all articles relating to competitors of the US or events during the US's tenure as superpower should be written with US spelling.  —
Sowlos  10:38, 30 March 2013 (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:Mars spacecraft

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wholly duplicates the scope of its parent
WP:OC. The Bushranger One ping only 10:15, 29 March 2013 (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:Deaths with bayonets

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy. As noted in the original nomination, the proposed name follows other subcategories of Category:Deaths by blade weapons and Category:Deaths by violence. The Bushranger One ping only 10:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at Speedy page
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:Unique aircraft carriers

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Missed nominating this one when all its companion categories were deleted at this discussion. All articles already properly categorised elsewhere. The Bushranger One ping only 09:52, 29 March 2013 (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:Mathematics source templates

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: reverse merge.---Mike Selinker (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#math template cat hierarchy The two categories largely duplicate each other and the diference in scope is subtile. Happy for the merge to go either way with a slight preference for referencing resources as its a more inclusive title. Salix (talk): 09:06, 29 March 2013 (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:Catskill Fire lookout towers

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Originally had the first of these nominated for speedy, but after some discussion regarding the second (which had been nominated for a simple caps change), decided to take it here to see if there would be any other opinions. The proposed titles fit the subject parent category (Category:Fire lookout towers in New York), and also better fit the area parent categories (Category:Catskill Park, Category:Adirondack Park). Note that "the" is not used before park names for categories of this sort (note for instance subcats of Category:Yellowstone National Park etc.). The Bushranger One ping only 08:41, 29 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_29&oldid=1138398339"