Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 3



Category:Emergency services of the United Kingdom

 * 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 deleted by User:GDonato citing C1: "empty category for at least four days". Black Falcon (Talk) 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * emergency services of the united kingdom


 * Nominator's rationale: changed to 'Emergency services in the United Kingdom' ninety:one 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - empty category which is not needed (Category:Emergency services in the United Kingdom is in use). -- Beloved Freak  16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Monarchs of Canada

 * 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * monarchs of canada


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete or Empty and give new inclusion guidelines. The Kings of France happened to control one province called New France, which contained a region known as Canada (New France).  They never claimed the title "Monarch of Canada".  Might as well have "Monarchs of Burgundy" and "Monarchs of Ile-de-France" as well!  Same thing for British monarch before 1867 when Canada was created as a seperate dominion or Commonwealth Realm.  This is a non-defining characteristic of the people categorized because it simply means they happened to hold sway over a territory that later became part of Canada.  Well so did Eric the Red and briefly so did the Kings of Scotland (Nova Scotia), Porutgal (Newfoundland) and Spain (British Columbia)!  No one inhistory ever claim to be King of Canada until 1867. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Modification - After thinking about it some more I think that a merge with Category:Heads of state of Canada is the (either name would work because both are acurate). However the important thing is to remove all the pre-1867 monarchs and say way they shouldn't be in there so that no one will try to put them back it. 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unneeded per nom, and I wouldn't be surprised if some Russian czar had some territorial claim to some western Canadian land as they certainly went further than southeastern Alaska in their explorations... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Category:Heads of state of Canada (i.e. since 1867 Confederation) seems to be the more significant and defining category for monarchs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a solid case that, at the very least, the Category title is highly inaccurate. I suppose someone could propose a Category:Monarchs of territories now part of Canada or something. At any rate, yes, Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify as a short article with a link from Monarchy of Canada, perhaps as Monarchy in Canada, which is currently a redirect. Incidentlaly, both Spain and Russia made claims to the west coast, leading the the Nootka Sound incident, which nearly led to war about 1790.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Coastal settlements in Massachusetts

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * coastal settlements in massachusetts


 * Nominator's rationale: This category has no purpose. See WP:OC: Non-defining or trivial characteristic, Intersection by location—Markles 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't agree with these assertions. And it's clear that many other editors feel that categories like this are both valid and valuable. In particular, please note Category:Coastal cities and Category:Coastal towns. The only thing that's missing is the obvious super-cat, Category:Coastal settlements. Cgingold (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep being on the coast is often defining for a settlement, as is being on a river, but we have no "riverine" categories, being in a valley, on a mountain, on seven hills, etc. are also defining, but for some reason coastal is the only one we have. Expect the others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The term for "on a river" is riparian. And you're right either we should have that too the costal one should go. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have Category:River cities, which may need to be renamed... Black Falcon (Talk) 06:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think being a riparian settlement is quite as defining as being a coastal settlement. A coastal settlement has access to a relatively large body of water, and this carries with it various cultural and economic consequences. A river, on the other hand, can be quite small. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Tertiary Education Institute in New Zealand

 * 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.  Per the discussion, it is unclear if these should or even can be merged into Category:Universities and colleges in New Zealand.  I'll leave that question for the pending(?) CFD on that category. Kbdank71 13:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Tertiary Education Institute in New Zealand to Category:Tertiary Education Institutes in New Zealand
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should be plural, as this is a listing of tertiary institutes. gadfium 05:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure I see the need for this unique category. Several of these, like Otago Polytechnic award Masters degrees, so should be in the normal Universities and colleges cat, which I'm sure includes non-degree awarding institutions in other countries - the Vocational sub-cat should probably be a sub-cat of the Univs & colls cat.  The fact that the ministry uses this particular term does not seem a justification.  If kept, rename per nom.Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with deleting it. The two subcategories are already in the parent Category:Education in New Zealand. Most of the articles currently in the cat should go into Category:Vocational education in New Zealand; any polytecs which award Masters degrees (I didn't know any did) should go in Category:Universities and colleges in New Zealand. This recategorisation will need to be done by hand.- gadfium 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think any tertiary institution qualifies as a college, so the whole lot can be merged to Category:Universities and colleges in New Zealand, but sorting the loose articles of non-degree-awarding places to the vocational sub-cat is desirable. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Universities and colleges in New Zealand says it is for Universities only, ie institutes which award degrees at least at Masters level. There are a only a very small number of polytecs in New Zealand which issue higher than Batchelor's degrees, so most do not qualify to be in this category. The "Colleges" part of the category is for residential colleges of universities, not for high schools, although they are commonly called colleges in New Zealand. The category was originally Category:New Zealand universities; it was renamed as a result of the discussion at Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 1 to place the country name at the end of the cat but with no discussion on the implied change of scope.- gadfium 19:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would favour renaming Category:Universities and colleges in New Zealand to Category:Universities in New Zealand. As I said in my previous comment, "colleges" is a confusing term in the New Zealand context. Residential colleges of universities are not educational institutes and should not be in this category; rather they can be in the appropriate category for the University that they serve. Once this discussion is complete, I'll consider making a separate rename suggestion for this.- gadfium 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Universities and colleges by country is the global cat for tertiary educational institutions. I don't agree at all that "The "Colleges" part of the category is for residential colleges of universities...." - any residential units should be weeded out or put in a sub-cat, and differences between universities and other institutions should also be handled by sub-cats. All English-speaking countries (and very many countries using other languages) use "College" in different ways in names; that is in no way specific to New Zealand. In fact the definition of a university appears to be that it awards all degrees including doctorates, according to the article, although I'm dubious about that myself. But if the current category is renamed Category:Universities and colleges in New Zealand, the other can be renamed Category:Universities in New Zealand, which many countries have.  But there should be a category combining all tertiary institutions. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the word "colleges" should be avoided in category names since it means so many different things. Renaming the category to the plural as I suggested at the top of this discussion keeps a category for all tertiary institutions. I'm also fine with deleting it. Renaming the Universities and Colleges cat can be a separate proposal, or can be done as part of this (I added a note to Category talk:Universities and colleges in New Zealand directing people here, but we should add a note to the cat page itself if we're going to take this part of the discussion further). It seems unnecessary to include a confusing and irrelevant term to the category, just for the sake of having all such categories named in a similar way.- gadfium 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Prehospital care

 * 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 12:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Prehospital care to Category:Emergency medical services
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - The main article for the category is Emergency medical services, and Prehospital care redirects to Emergency medical services. "Emergency medical services" is more descriptive and representative of the contents of the category and it is the actual name of the branch of emergency services.  The term "prehospital care" is not likely to be known out of context and outside of the emergency services community.  "Services" should be pleural, as this is the most common usage of "EMS."  There was prior discussion about service vs. services for the article title, and the conclusion was to make it pleural.  Scott Alter 04:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Basically I don't object to this rename.  But it seems that the contents of the category include a few items that might not fit the new name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What might not fit the new name? From a quick scan over the articles and subcategories, everything seems to apply to EMS.  I've been trying to (re)organize the emergency services categories, so if something is out of place, please make the appropriate changes or let me know.  --Scott Alter 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well some like Incident Commander, Kendrick Extrication Device, American Ambulance Association among others. These do not provide emergency medical services.  They are tools used or the command structure at a scene or associations not directly providing services. Maybe the lack of a main article or introduction makes it appear ambiguous and that could be my real problem.  The topic is really broad so why not include Fire truck?  In looking at this, I see selected articles from categories like Category:Patient transport what is the selection process or should the articles be dropped and Category:Patient transport be added as a subcat?  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we do have different views on what "emergency medical services" means. You seem to be taking it quite literally to mean "services/organizations/people that provide emergency medical care;" whereas I envision it to mean "things that are used by and related to the emergency medical services."  I am envisioning the category to parallel Category:Firefighting, Category:Law enforcement, and Category:Rescue.  All of these categories are currently a mess, with many miscategorized articles.  I have spent some time recently trying to reorganize articles and categories - what you are seeing now is much better than it was a few days ago.  I do agree that there still needs to be better and more subcategories of Category:Prehospital care, but I am having difficulty devising descriptive names that are not too long.  I think Category:Patient transport was designed to be for "ways to move patients."  This category should also be renamed to something more clear.  There should be a category like "Equipment used by emergency medical services," which would contain articles like Kendrick Extrication Device, Bag valve mask, etc.  "Incident command" should be its own category (containing Incident commander, among others), and should be a subcategory in categories that use it (including Category:Firefighting, Category:Emergency medical services, and Category:Rescue).  I am also debating whether to create a subcategory for "EMS associations," or just stick articles like American Ambulance Association in with Category:American medical associations and keep them in Category:Emergency medical services.  In any case, all of the articles currently within Category:Prehospital care (including the three you mentioned) do relate to Emergency medical services, and should be somewhere within this category's hierarchy.  Ideally, there might be no or very few articles directly in Category:Emergency medical services/Category:Prehospital care, with most being subcategorized to something more specific.  --Scott Alter 11:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the nail on the head. Services as used here is ambiguous. Its use is not clear. I suspect that readers in different countries may also have slightly different views on the scope. Items like Incident commander probably belong in a category as you say.  That could then be a sub cat in many other categories.  While the role and responsibilities may change, the basic concept does not.  Category:Emergency services may have a role here. Your comment about Category:Patient transport, br9ing up a different issue. The equipment is not always used by formal organizations.  Today you will find defibrillators in many places with many people trained, are all of these groups emergency medical services?  Likewise for back boards. I have seen them in businesses, so are they emergency medical services?  Restricting Category:Emergency medical services to formal groups would solve much of this and the various pieces of equipment could be simply included with the appropriate sub categories.
 * It really depends on how you define EMS (especially Service vs System). You can look at it as anyone involved with emergency medical care, from the first responder to specialty hospital services (i.e. trauma surgery and cath lab) are a part of the system. For example, numerous states certify a first responder level below EMT-Basic. Hence, a CPR/AED trained lay person is a member of EMS in a first responder capacity. Hence I wouldn't object to the page on first responders being included into the category. Similarly, I imagine that the incident commander page would be included in multiple categories (disaster response, fire, police, etc) as it is relevant to all of those categories. Also entries, like the medical director stub, fit better in an EMS category since they are vital to providing prehospital care, yet generally do not engage directly in prehospital care. -JPINFV (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. However the resulting category will likely need some cleanup to remove any ambiguousness about what it covers. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Emergency Medical Services is not an ambiguous term to USA-based providers. It is, for example, completely understandably to me why a Kendrick Extrication Device fits into this category. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -JPINFV (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Theatres in Québec

 * 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: already renamed and redirected. Kbdank71 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Québec to Category:Theatres in Quebec
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proposed renaming to commonly used English spelling of Quebec, per WP:CANSTYLE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename as per nom. Common English spelling on en:WP. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename as spelling error. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename, consistent with WP:CANSTYLE and the main Quebec article. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per WP:CANSTYLE. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Characters in Dark-Hunters 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: delete, move the two articles to Category:Fictional characters until a better subcat is found dur, move into Category:Dark-Hunter series and Category:Characters in written fantasy. Kbdank71 13:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Characters in Dark-Hunters Series to Category:Characters in Dark-Hunters series (or delete)
 * Upmerge Category:Dark-Hunters and Category:Dream-Hunters
 * Rationale: The two subcategories are too narrow to justify separation from the parent category (they contain only the main articles) and should be upmerged. The main "Characters in..." category may also be unwarranted, as the articles could be relocated to another subcategory of Category:Fictional characters. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all three and move the two articles into Category:Dark-Hunter series and Category:Characters in written fantasy. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Denial of Armenian Genocide Documents

 * 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 12:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Denial of Armenian Genocide Documents to Category:Armenian Genocide images
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use standard and NPOV naming format for an image gallery. Counterintutively, these are actually pictures of Turkish (as opposed to Armenian) victims in World War I; does this change what this category should be named and where it should be categorized? "Armenian Genocide" refers to the killing/injuring of Armenians, not Turks ... (I note also that as a result of the addition of the pictures to Denial of the Armenian Genocide, the page has been locked.)   Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * this documents are about Denial of Armenian Genocide. This pictures are resource for reason of Armenian Events 1915-1918 (someone say events are as Armenian Genocide). i put it with reference of WP:NPOV to Denial of Armenian Genocide article. but someone locked it. i think There is a bias on "Armenian Genocide" article series. A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. these pictures published by Government of Turkey. Turkey keep Ottoman Archives. --Qwl (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially, these photographs are produced (according to Qwl, who uploaded all the images in this category) by the Government of Turkey in order to enforce denial of the Armenian Genocide minority POV on the Armenian Genocide. Essentially, these photographs are of highly dubious origin, and I recognize at least two of them to be pictures of Armenian victims re-labeled as being of Turks. Most of these images are orphaned anyways, and so probably should be deleted. And any remainder moved to the new category (no reason to have a minority POV category when the majority does not have one yet). The Myotis (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; you said this more eloquently that I did in making the nomination, and I agree with what you've said. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * why do you want to hide the documents?? you want to hide some facts. is it real or not? how do you measure minor or major? are the six countries minor?--Qwl (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support rename to Category:Armenian Genocide images per nom and The Myotis. A general category for images related to the Armenian Genocide is more useful than a narrow category for documents used to support its denial. In the future, it may be appropriate to subcategorise images related to the Armenian Genocide, but I think that a map vs. photograph vs. document (and so on) distinction would be a better basis for subcategorisation than a denialist/non-denialist distinction. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.