Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 23



Category:Osteopathic medicine

 * 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 to merge. —  ξ xplicit  20:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Osteopathic medicine to Category:Osteopathy
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Osteopathy is general term for what is occasionally called "osteopathic medicine". Gabbe (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - These may be synonymous in Europe, but in the USA they are very different things. Osteopathic medicine in the United States is practiced by DOs, who have a full medical license (just like MDs).  Osteopathy is a branch of alternative medicine.  These differnces is why there are separate articles for Osteopathy and Osteopathic medicine.  --Scott Alter (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "Osteopathic medicine" is ambiguous (as the disambiguation page Osteopathic medicine notes). If Category:Osteopathic medicine is supposed to be about Osteopathic medicine in the United States, wouldn't it make more sense if the category were moved to Category:Osteopathic medicine in the United States? Or, if we want to include Osteopathic medicine in Canada as well, to Category:Osteopathic medicine in North America? Gabbe (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Osteopathy" is just as ambiguous to me as "osteopathic medicine" is to you. In the US, "osteopathy" is a rarely used term, usually misused by someone meaning to refer to "osteopathic medicine."  So should osteopathy be a disambiguation page too?  I don't think regional differences in uses of similar terms is reason for disambiguation.  So I'm not sure why osteopathic medicine is a disambiguation page, as the United States is the only country with osteopathic medical schools, and the only real article about osteopathic medicine.  Thus, one could argue that it belongs directly at Osteopathic medicine with a hatnote to Osteopathy for people in other countries who may occasionally call [it] "osteopathic medicine".  The Canada article just discusses the practice rights of US-trained osteopathic physicians in Canada, and probably could be merged into the main article.  (I believe the reason a separate article was created was for the sole purpose that info about Canada should not be in an article titled "...in the United States".)  Therefore, I'd propose renaming the article to match the category, rather than renaming the category to match the articles.  --Scott Alter (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article in the New York Times, for example, uses the terms "osteopathy" and "osteopathic medicine" interchangeably. If journalists for the New York Times mixes the two terms up, Wikipedia's readers can be forgiven for being confused about them. How do we lessen this (potential) confusion? Gabbe (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or how about this: The definition of "osteopathy" in The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary concludes with "Also called osteopathic medicine." Other dictionary definitions listed here (as well as Oxford Dictionaries) don't make any distinction in meaning between "osteopathy" and "osteopathic medicine" either. Gabbe (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose - That the terms are misused or mixed up in USA, is reason I think to ensure that Wikipedia is a better learning resource for readers, by helping to highlight the differences in training, regulation, practice etc. From my non-US perspective, and that as a qualified conventional doctor, it took some reading of wikipedia and explanation from kind editors to appreciate that DO's really are "proper doctors" with investigation and pescribing rights, as opposed to the non-doctor complimentary manipulation-only practitioners of osteopathy here in UK (with some aspects of osetopathy being widely perceived as further towards alternative healing). Both US Osteopathic Medicine and more global Osteopathy have fine traditions and should have a range of articles associated with the topics. The categoriies should be kept apart, but with clear hatnotes explaining the difference and linking to the other category. "Category:Osteopathic medicine in North America?" is ungainly (suggests "Category:Osteopathic medicine in Africa" etc for each continent in turn). David Ruben Talk 22:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * support - There's too much confusion currently with these categories. For example, at this time, Osteopathy is categorised under Category:Osteopathic manipulative medicine, which is in turn categorised under Category:Osteopathic medicine. This makes no sense. There are now 18 pages under "Osteopathic manipulative medicine" -- all of them can just as well be under Category:Osteopathy. --Dyuku (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2010 (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.

Official account of the September 11 attacks

 * 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 Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks, rename Category:Groups challenging the official account of the September 11 attacks to Category:Groups challenging the official accounts of the September 11 attacks (solely for pluralization).--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks to Category:Groups critical of the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks Category:Criticism of the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks
 * Propose renaming Category:Groups challenging the official account of the September 11 attacks to Category:Groups critical of the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks.


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename as indicated or merge into "conspiracy theory" categories. Although a few of the groups critical of the official account are not conspiracy theory groups (however, 911AET and CAP are conspiracy theory groups, per their articles), "official account(s)" is inherently WP:POV, as it implies (1) that the account(s) are only from "official" sources, and (2) that there are plausible non-official (or non-mainstream) accounts.  If merged, the existing categories categorization needs to be properly restored. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * First, Arthur, do you really want to rename both of these categories to Category:Groups critical of the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks?? If that is your intent, you should propose merging them into that target category.


 * Second, I find it interesting that you evince so much concern over alleged POV issues with the term "official account(s)", yet you haven't the slightest concern over the blatantly POV suggestion that all of the articles could simply be merged into "conspiracy theory" categories -- never mind that as you acknowledge yourself, they don't all fit that description. A minor detail, to be sure.


 * Third, as was pointed out the last time we discussed this (see below for link to previous CFD), it is the "official accounts" -- namely & specifically the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report on the collapse of the Twin Towers -- that are the principal targets of critics and conspiracy theorists. They are also, of course, the basis for the "mainstream account" -- a term which is less-well defined than "official accounts", and therefore less suitable for a Category name.


 * Fourth, for some reason, you couldn't be bothered to provide a link for your own previous CFD for Category:Groups challenging the official account of the September 11 attacks -- nor for the other recent, related CFD that resulted in the renamed  and also led directly to my creation of Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks.


 * Lastly, as author of that newly-created Category, I want to thank you for the courtesy of notifying me about this CFD, Arthur. Oh, wait. That's right... you couldn't be bothered, could you?? I find it nothing less than outrageous that this sort of behavior is permitted. Purely by "luck", I have recently returned to CFD participation after a full year's absence -- otherwise, I would never have seen this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that "official accounts" is unwanted POV here. I would personally suggest "common understanding" or "common view" in its place, as in Category:Groups critical of common views of the September 11 attacks. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (do not rename) Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks as is, but
 * Rename Category:Groups challenging the official account of the September 11 attacks by pluralizing to Category:Groups challenging the official accounts of the September 11 attacks. Cgingold (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected the first proposed from "groups critical of" to "criticism of".
 * If you made it clear that it was restricted to specific criticism of the official reports, then the categories would be appropriately named, but:
 * The main should be removed from the categories.
 * The CT categories should be sister categories, rather than daughter categories.
 * 911AET, the Canadian political party, and the opinion polls still don't belong in these categories. I'm not sure where opinion polls belong, but the others clearly support conspiracy theories.
 * I should have informed you, but I should have informed the creator of the other category, as well. (AWB doesn't work on my computer, for some reason.  Do you know of any other semi-automated notice tools?)
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be official reports on, rather than official accounts of. "Official accounts" is still inherently POV.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete not sure these two cats are really needed just use Category:9/11 conspiracy theories. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2010 (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:Inkscape

 * 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.  Nothing to upmerge- the one article is already in the one parent. Courcelles (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * inkscape


 * Nominator's rationale: Contains only eponymous article, I don't see much potential for growth. Svick (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Upmerge -- an unnecessary level of categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2010 (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:Exhibition centers

 * 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 as nominated. I'm erring to the side of caution per Vegaswikian's point. If a rename to  is warranted, feel free nominate  for renaming. —  ξ xplicit  20:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Exhibition centers to Category:Convention centers
 * Nominator's rationale: I'm wondering if it makes much sense to keep these distinct - our article convention center is the redirect target for exhibition center, and no clear-cut distinction seems to exist between them. Several of the Brit/Commonwealth English subcategories are "Exhibition and conference centres in ..."  so perhaps an alternative combined title for the overall categories might be "Convention and exhibition centers". If they are to be kept distinct, what criteria should be used to distinguish them? A piece of text on the category pages would help if we were to do that. TheGrappler (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. If this rename happens, sub categories should retain the use of exhibition centers when that is the correct local usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some are for exhibitions. Some are for conventions. The distinction is quite clear: conventions are for people, exhibitions are for people and things. If the two must be bunched together (don't ask me why) then the category name should reflect it, category:Convention and exhibition centers, should it not? Another point: I'd strongly discourage using names of unstable wikipedia articles, stubs and redirects in CFD matters. Stable, publicly audited content (GA and FA grade) is a fine reference, but here "our article convention center" is merely four lines of text plus a hatnote warning. East of Borschov (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Category:Convention centers seems to be nicely organised with many country subcats, containing, one hopes, convention centres. Category:Exhibition centers in contrast is rudimentary, containing subcats mainly of form Category:Exhibition and conference centres in the United Kingdom (which has been made a subcat of Category:Convention centers). I would agree with East of Borschov that the 2 things are different. Perhaps the non-convention-centres should all be removed and put in Category:Exhibition centers (not subcatted by country until there are sufficient articles) and the rest all renamed to Category:Convention centers in Foo (give or take local spelling/usage ... conference centre is the UK term). Eg Earls Court Exhibition Centre is a 'Conference centre in London' and also an 'Exhibition centre', whereas One Great George Street does not seem to be an exhibition centre. Occuli (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with East of Borschov's suggestion that, if merged, "Convention and exhibition centers" would be the better name (and with Vegaswikian, that it wouldn't be suitable for all the subcats, which is why I didn't do a batch nom). But I'm still uncertain just how big clear the difference is between them - it's true that a convention, an exhibition and a tradeshow are all distinguishable, but what does this say about buildings that house them? A "convention center" can presumably still run at least a small exhibition, and I'm sure most do. Indeed, Los Angeles Convention Center (which we classify only as "Convention center") has a section for "exhibitors" on their website. "One Great George Street", mentioned by Occuli above as "convention but not exhibition", also advertizes its exhibition facilities. On the flip side, "exhibition centers" are presumably capable of hosting conventions/conferences - I know our article may not be entirely trustworthy but its description of "exhibition center" as a name for larger convention centers seems to ring true. Trying to distinguish the two seems difficult to me, and given the large cross-over, I'm not sure why it's necessary. The subcategories like Category:Exhibition and conference centres in the United Kingdom seem much less ambiguous, and therefore more likely that articles will be sorted correctly and easy to navigate to. TheGrappler (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence that you pointed to, Very large venues, suitable for major trade shows, are known as 'exhibition centres'. is questionable. In the US, three of the largest convention centers, the Orange County Convention Center, McCormick Place and the Las Vegas Convention Center all use convention center.  So maybe the this is more of a US/UK variant.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge both to category:Convention and exhibition centers. To my mind a convention is something like a conference, while an exhibition centre is about displaying goods.  However, in view of the extent to which there is (apparently) cross-over, a combined category seems appropriate.  However, this does not mean that all sub-cats need to be similarly merged, if a genuine distinction can be found in local (national) usage.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Unless we are willing to use something like Category:Convention centers, exhibition centers, expo centers, exhibit halls, conference centers and like purposed venues.  There are two many names and too many variations to start including them all in the name. So stick with the main article as the category name and allow other names in by country subcategories where there is a clearly defined local usage where different names are predominately used. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2010 (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.