Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 29



Films about health 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Films about health care to Category:Films about health
 * Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about health care to Category:Documentary films about health
 * Nominator's rationale: The films included in these categories include a number of films that are not per-se about healthcare or provision/receipt of medical services, but are rather about health issues more generally (i.e nutrition, diet, etc). In addition, the subcats and films in this category are broader than how healthcare is traditionally defined (for example, films about HIV/AIDS, drugs, alcoholism, etc). I feel that for this particular category, there isn't a point in trying to distinguish between which films are about 'healthcare' and which ones are about 'health', and since health is the accepted more general category, this should be renamed. There is an existing sub-category for for those that take place within a medical setting for example. Note that I would oppose creating a new category for just 'health'-themed films, as it would be rare to find a 'health' film that didn't at one point talk about doctors, and it is certainly impossible to find a film dealing with doctors that doesn't deal with the result (i.e. health). KarlB (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * comment further evidence added: --KarlB (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * amazon categorizes by 'health':
 * Health &/or Medicine documentary site
 * PBS Newshour on health
 * PBS NOW uses health care/health interchangably (the topic is health, the header says healthcare)
 * PBS Healthcare in America (but contains 'health'-like topics, such as lead paint in toys]
 * PBS Extra for teachers is on health
 * BBC has health section on website: website
 * BBC Programmes sorted by 'health and wellbeing' bbc health and wellbeing programmes
 * I can't find *any* which have separate health and healthcare sections for films. --KarlB (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Health is too general a topic as it would include for instance films about food and drink, such as Super Size Me. Health care is sufficently wide enough to include a range of topics but is still well-defined enough so as not to be too general. Cjc13 (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment Thanks for your comment. I just perused up through 'F' and found these: Birth Control (film), Breaking the Habit (film), Children of the Stars, A Delicate Balance – The Truth, Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11, The Final Inch, Food Matters, Forks Over Knives - it is fair to say these are all about health, and while I assume there are certainly some 'healthcare' moments in these films, it probably wouldn't be accurate to say the topic of these films is 'healthcare'. This category also includes the following subcats:, , Category:Documentary films about abortion - and some of the films in these categories approach the subject from the medical side, while some approach it from the social side, or the religious side, or the culture side, etc etc - and I don't think we want to have and . There aren't that many films, and the category, as I mentioned, is already full of films that go beyond healthcare. Thus, a simple rename to 'Health' seems reasonable, and I don't think that would cause a flood of new films to be placed here. If at some point this category grows, further sub-cats could be created, but perhaps (like HIV/Drugs/alcohol) focused on particular health issues (say, obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc). I hope you might take these arguments into consideration and consider whether that might convince you to change your vote. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that just means that the documentary category needs sorting out. For instance, I think the food films should be in Category:Documentary films about food and drink and the environmental films should be in Category:Documentary films about environmental issues rather than Category:Documentary films about health care. Cjc13 (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I do agree some of these would be good to have in both categories, but it is nonetheless useful to have a place where films that focus on issues of health can be captured, and unfortunately as currently named the category is misleading (because not all films about health really deal that much with healthcare). --KarlB (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The distinction between health and healthcare is quite slippery.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I do prefer the broader and more inclusive definition. And if at some point we need to create a subcat for the health care or medical profession, as a primary topic, fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. How are you defining "Films about health"? For instance, does it include films about running or other sports which relate to health? Does it include all films about food and drink, since food and drink affect health? Does it include all films about the environment? There are so many factors that affect health that the scope of the new category is not clear. If someone wants to have Category:Films about health, then there is nothing to stop its creation and Category:Films about health care could be left as a subcategory. Cjc13 (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * reply Thanks, it's a good question. My gut is, if the focus of the film is on health, healthcare, or medicine, it should be in this category. I don't think a documentary on wine producers would fit well, but a documentary on the health impacts of drinking too much alcohol? Yes. Let me give you another fictional example: Joe makes a film about his struggle with terminal cancer called "My cancer". In the first cut of the film, the film covers his daily life, his sadness over his disease, interactions with his family, struggling with grief - during the whole film, only once does it show him entering a hospital to get some radiation therapy; the rest of the film is about how the disease affects his life. So it really seems to be about health. Then, the film gets recut, and it now focuses on the radiation therapy, and all the new fancy treatments he is getting, and has interviews with doctors on the latest medical science. Now, it seems to be about healthcare. Imagine you are an editor, trying to classify films, and you don't have time to watch a 2 hour film just to figure out if the film is cut 1 or cut 2? The problem is, the line between health and healthcare is very fuzzy - healthcare is one of the things that can produce health, but there are many others (see Social determinants of health). We have, but we don't have or ; we have  but we don't have  or ; we have  but we don't have  or . The point is, the world is full of closely related words that have different meanings, and I do not disagree that 'health' and 'healthcare' have different meanings; the question is, is it a useful difference to use to categorize documentary films, and can we come up with a bright line that divides them (i.e. if a hospital shows up in the film, its automatically about healthcare, etc)? For me the answer is, this is just not worth the trouble.--KarlB (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What is with the effort to eliminate the categorization of healthcare? While I may not agree too often with Cjc13, his points here are right on.  If we need Category:Films about health and Category:Documentary films about health create them.  They don't need a discussion here.  This is basically a split of existing categories.  There is no need to eliminate any categories.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * reply Thanks. I appreciate that you prefer a separation. may I ask how you would deal with this category: or ? would you suggest that we separate those too, into  and ? or for alcoholism, would you suggest separating that into  and . Or some other solution? You have been consistent in your opposition to these category merges, but you have yet to answer the questions of how to do the separation - as it's really not as easy as you might think. Take a look at this category: Category:Films about psychiatry - how many of those films are about healthcare, and how many are about living with mental illness? More importantly, do you really think that wikipedia editors can correctly sort them, and if so, according to *what criteria?* CJ13 proposed that "supersize me" was not about healthcare; but you may know that during this movie, he regularly has his health measured by doctors and nurses, and is under the care of a doctor during the whole stunt. so is that now a film about healthcare, or health? how much time must a doctor spend on screen before it shifts from being a health film into a healthcare film? I beg of you, please, if you're going to oppose this nomination, give some clear clear clear criteria on what goes in health and what goes in healthcare. I can't...--KarlB (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Supersize me is not a film I have seen so I can not comment in detail. However one could ask if that belongs in either of these categories.  If any, it would be more likely to belong in a health category rather then health care since I don't believe it is about healthcare.  It is about doing stupid stunts.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My expectation is that most editors will not have seen a film they may be classifying. But your response is interesting - can you tell me why you think it is health rather than health care? Even if during much of the film, his body chemistry is being analyzed by doctors, and the film begins and ends with a medical test, and it is his doctor that ends the 'stunt'? To be honest, I've seen the film, and even I don't know if it's really about health care, or our health care system, or our nutrition system, or human health, or obesity, or whatever - but I know it's about health, that much is clearly obvious to me.
 * I understand that you doubt whether these cats should be merged, but I beg of you to recall that Wikipedia is based on outside sources - no original research; and I have yet to find *any* outside source which has sorted films into "Health documentary" and then, next to (or underneath) "Health care documentary" - every single place I have found has grouped them into a single category (which is almost always health). You can check for yourself - for example, amazon categorizes by 'health': or this site calls it Health &/or Medicine; here is PBS, known for its documentaries: here they use health as a topic for Newshour, here they use health care/health interchangably (the topic is health, the header says healthcare) ; then the 'extra' for teachers is on 'health' ... What about our friends in the UK at BBC? They have a "health" section of their website, and then their media is sorted by 'health and wellbeing' bbc health and wellbeing programmes... anyway I don't want to bore people, I feel like I've had to trot out the same arguments and sources again and again, and each time I ask those who are opposed to bring *any* sources, *anywhere*, that differentiate between "health films" and "healthcare films" or "health law" and "healthcare law" or "health legislation" and "healthcare legislation" and, sadly, those opposed continue to trot out zero evidence, zero references. Just the single repeated claim "health is not the same as healthcare", but unfortunately, they offer no guidance on how to effect a split. In any case, if what I've presented above doesn't convince you, that demonstrates that the outside world *does not* split documentaries and films into 'health' and 'healthcare', then nothing will. I do hope you might reconsider. Thanks.--KarlB (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate how each and every article should be categorized. That is not appropriate here.  I understand that you are asking because you find the difference between health and healthcare confusing, and that could be the case.  But the issue here is that health and healthcare are not the same as was explained several discussions ago.  Since they are not the same, they should not be confused by renaming a perfectly good and focused category.  If you need the health ones, create and populate them.  It does not need to be discussed here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused about the difference; I just don't think its a useful way to split the world. I've also given evidence that no-one in the outside world does so either. And unfortunately, in spite of my continued asking, you and others who oppose are unable to come with any criteria by which I can decide whether a given film is 'health' or 'healthcare'. It would be the same if I asked you to differentiate between films about teaching and films about education - how would you determine? Almost all education films have teachers in them, some talk about teaching policy, teaching pay, student/teacher relations, school policy, etc etc etc - the line is FUZZY.
 * Here is the definition of healthcare: "Health care (or healthcare) is the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in humans. Health care is delivered by practitioners in medicine, chiropractic, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy, allied health, and other care providers. It refers to the work done in providing primary care, secondary care and tertiary care, as well as in public health." So, if we take an expansive view, yoga and massage therapy, designed to ease stress, is targeted at prevention of injury - thus, it is healthcare? Public health, that involves population-based approaches to healthcare. So, a film about promotion of condoms in schools - would that be healthcare? According to the definition, yes. But here is the definition of health: "In humans, it is the general condition of a person's mind, body and spirit, usually meaning to be free from illness, injury or pain (as in “good health” or “healthy”)" So clearly, the yoga video is about health. The video about the cancer survivor who gets some treatment and gets better, if the film focuses on their inner life, one could clearly say it's about their health. I could go on and on. There is no bright line, there is no clear criteria, health in the outcome of healthcare, healthcare is one route to health, the two are hopelessly intertwined.
 * Could you at least tell me this - given you suggest a split, should we also create Category:Documentary films about HIV/AIDS treament and care and Category:Documentary films about living with HIV/AIDs? Because otherwise, you might have HIV-healthcare films not under the healthcare cat, or HIV-health films under the healthcare cat. etc. It's just NOT WORTH IT. Why do you care so much about maintaining this split, when you're unwilling to provide *any* criteria or guidance for how to do such a split?? --KarlB (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have HIV/AIDS, then you will be having healthcare of some sort, hence Category:Documentary films about HIV/AIDS is already a subcat of Category:Documentary films about health care. Films about diet and food refer to poeple who currently do not have a health problem and so currently do not need specific health care, so I suggest those would go in Category:Documentary films about health if it existed, and not Category:Documentary films about health care. Cjc13 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Here are 3 films about HIV/AIDS, that I just picked from the start of the category:
 * The Broadcast Tapes of Dr. Peter: "The film is based upon the video diary of Peter Jepson-Young, better known as "Dr. Peter", which documented his life as a person with AIDS."
 * A Closer Walk "what are the underlying causes of AIDS; the relationship between health, dignity, and human rights; and the universal need for action, compassion, and commitment to counter what has become the worst plague in human history."
 * Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt is a 1989 documentary film that tells the story of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt.
 * Again, I haven't watched these films, but from reading the titles it appears as if they aren't really just about the provision of medical services - indeed that may be entirely tangential to the story - instead they are about the experience of having the disease, or about the societal implications of the disease. If your argument holds, that we should separate health from healthcare, then isn't it logical to say we should separate HIV/AIDS from HIV/AIDS care as well? This is why I don't think it's worth it to have 2 categories - because no matter where you put Category:Documentary films about HIV/AIDS, it will have films that are either not about health, or not about healthcare. Again, my argument is not that there aren't clear cut films about healthcare or clearcut films about; my argument is that there are lots of films in the fuzzy middle between the two, and it's not worth separating for that reason. Do we have and ? If not, why not? Education and teaching mean different things? But our goal with categories is helping the user - and in my opinion, two categories will confuse the user, who may not be versed in the subtleties (wait, is public health part of healthcare or part of health??). Remember, as I've shown above, no-one in the outside world makes this split. Why should wikipedia do so?--KarlB (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * note to closing admin I'd ask the closing admin to consider that none of the oppose votes has provided any outside sources that differentiate between 'films about health' and 'films about healthcare', and thus consider that lack of evidence in evaluating the close. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No, from what I'm seeing in the discussion above, the two terms are not one and the same. That said, there do seem to be a few pages which are poorly categorised here (cocoon? really?) - jc37 12:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment Thanks for your comment. It is of course clear that 'health' and 'health care' do not mean the same thing. However, the question is, is it useful for editors to have two categories (for now there is only one)? As shown above, I have yet to find (and those opposed have yet to show) any evidence that sources in the outside world categorize films in this way, with one set of films about health, and another about health care. I cited BBC, PBS, Amazon, 3rd party film sites, etc - almost all of them use 'health' or some variant, and none of them mark a divide between films about health care and films about health. Thus, attempting to enforce this categorization, based on criteria which have yet to be elaborated by those who oppose, is essentially WP:OR. I'd thus humbly request that you a) reconsider your vote or b) provide some sort of evidence from 3rd party sources that gives an idea of how to determine if a film is about health or health care. If there is more evidence you need to shift your mind, let me know and I will try to dig it up. I've proposed many scenarios above, I can come up with new ones if you like - but the bottom line is, the line between these two terms is very fuzzy in the real world; and its not at all clear to me at what point the story of a man's struggle with HIV becomes a health care film vs a film about his health.--KarlB (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In general I would say that films about specific diseases such as Aids would come under health care, as some form of special treatment or care is involved. Films about general health topics such as the environment or diet and food (often relate to the population as a whole) would be in films about health. Cjc13 (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It sounds like your definition of 'health' is something like Public health, since you mention population approaches, and I'd like to point out that in some definitions public health is *part* of health care (see health care). But if we take your description, this means a film about toxic materials in the river and the health impacts it has on people, including various types of cancer, should *not* go in healthcare according to your proposal? Or a film about a severely overweight person, who has to go on a serious diet in order to control his weight, since it is about food, it should go in health? Or to take the HIV example, here are 3 HIV/AIDs films I chose earlier to discuss:
 * The Broadcast Tapes of Dr. Peter: "The film is based upon the video diary of Peter Jepson-Young, better known as "Dr. Peter", which documented his life as a person with AIDS."
 * A Closer Walk "what are the underlying causes of AIDS; the relationship between health, dignity, and human rights; and the universal need for action, compassion, and commitment to counter what has become the worst plague in human history."
 * Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt is a 1989 documentary film that tells the story of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt.
 * It's not clear that any of these is really about healthcare, but per your argument above they should automatically go there. My point in making this nomination is not, as some seem to believe, that I believe that there is no difference between health and healthcare. My point is, it is not worth distinguishing films on this basis, as no-one else does so, and for the same reason that we don't need to have both and . No-one has provided any evidence that 3rd party sources distinguish films in this way. If you cannot provide a 3rd party source that shows how to sort films between health and healthcare, how can you expect wikipedia editors to do so? Trust me, it's not as easy as you are making it out to be. Having looked at a lot of these categories over the past few months, I can guarantee you one thing - there is zero consensus by editors on the boundary, and on when something becomes health vs healthcare. So unless you can propose something more precise than the ideas above, I'd kindly ask that you reconsider your vote. --KarlB (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2012 (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:Units_of_chemical_measurement

 * 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/Withdrawn. The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Units of chemical measurement to Category:Quantities and units of chemical measurement
 * Nominator's rationale: Many of the pages in this category refer to chemical QUANTITIES, not UNITS. This should be reflected in the name of the category. RolfSander (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: (One) parent cat is Category:Units of measure - The Bushranger One ping only 03:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this makes it more complicated. After renaming it won't be a subset of the parent cat anymore (quantities of chemical measurement are NOT a units of measure). Alternatively, we could leave the name as it is and remove all entries in Category:Units of chemical measurement that are not units.--RolfSander (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the accepted term is units. If something is not a unit, it should not be in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed all pages that are not about units. Now we can keep the name of the category.--RolfSander (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2012 (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.

Works about race

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about race to Category:Documentary films about race and ethnicity
 * Propose renaming Category:Plays about race to Category:Plays about race and ethnicity
 * Propose renaming Category:Works about race to Category:Works about race and ethnicity
 * Propose renaming Category:Films about race to Category:Films about race and ethnicity
 * Propose renaming Category:Books about race to Category:Books about race and ethnicity
 * Nominator's rationale: Renaming towards a broader category which is more inclusive; while in the US, race and ethnicity are sometimes used as synonyms, in most of the world this is not the case. Thus, adding "ethnicity" makes this a broader category, and allows inclusion of films which are not purely framed in the context of 'race'. Note: a merge of some sort with Category:Film by culture could be envisaged at some point in the future - I would welcome ideas on the best way to structure this. --KarlB (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note the following discussion was moved from april 27; I moved it here so the discussion can all be in one place.
 * In the interest of consistency you may want to include its parent, Category:Films about race, which has a similar description. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment there is also  and  and even Category:Films by culture. You're right this is more complex than just one cat. If you have broader recommendations on how to clean this up it would be appreciated. --KarlB (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wish, just do a group nom for all "foo about race" categories where you feel the same logic applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I did a group nomination of the others here: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_29 --KarlB (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant that you could have modified this nom to add the others here, but that's fine, too, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ah. hmmm. I'm not sure what to do now. Shall I move this one + discussion over to the newer day, to give it all time for more discussion? I'm not sure what the policy is on moving discussions between days. --KarlB (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not think the proposed name change is helpful. The current name seems to work and the categories already include non-US topics. Cjc13 (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Race and ethnicity are totally different topics. Of course, race is also a false idea, but that does not prevent people from making films about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I think that's going too far. In America, they are *not* totally different; many people think 'african american' and 'white' are races, while others will say they are 'ethnicities'. Race is a false idea is also a bit exaggerated; perhaps you could say race has no biological basis, but as a social concept it is certainly very real. The reason I proposed these renames is based on the contents of the categories in question - note that there are already separate cats for 'racism' - this is more about relationships between different cultures, whether you want to call them races or ethnicities. Leaving it as is, and having subcats like or, when arguably none of those are about race and all are more about ethnicity and encounters with the 'other' is wrong. You yourself recently said that 'african-american' is an ethnicity, not a race; and some in america would agree with you, and some would not - so where should  go? my point is, I don't think we can solve this argument here. If we have inclusive category names, we can capture both. Otherwise, what is our other option? To have "Books about ethnicity" and try to separate those from "Books about race". Please don't make wikipedia editors do that.--KarlB (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition of race is a biologically determined reality. I can not remember the exact name of the article, but for a historiography class I had at Eastern Michigan University we read an article where the author used a dictionary definition of race to prove it is false.  That people have tried to redefine race in the last 20 years just makes things even worse.  Race was always clearly understood to be something tied to your physical being, something inherited.  Race is a social construct, but it is a social construct that is accepted on the basis of it having a real, biological backing.  The assumption that people of different racial groups act differently because of biological difference is still too widely held for me to back down from denouncing race as anything but false.  Ethnicity is not race.  If it was than the US Census would not try to class Chaldeans, Atrabs, Iranians, Copts and Lebanese as White.  In fact they would probably have a seperate ethnic category for Jews if Race really was ethnicity.  Race and ethnicity are two distinct ideas.  The same term can be sued for both, but they are clearly different.  Until people stop pretending at times that I have any connection with the mountains along the southern boundary of European Russia, not only ignoring my Cherokee and Wampanoag ancestors because my hair and skin color makes them think they know my ethnicity, but also because of the theory of the three great races that has not been accepted by any anthropologist in over 40 years, I will say race is not ethnicity, but it is a false concept that has too wide an acceptance.  I can trace some of my ancestral lines back 1000 years, and no where do they get closer to the Caucauses than the Carpathian Mountains.  Until "Caucasian" is thrown out of speech as has "Negroid" and "Mongoloid" the false notions of race will have too much power, and to pretend that race and ethnicity are the same will be to ignore reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly, things like the color of your skin or the shape of your eyes can be determined by biology, but the concept of race, which groups these things all together into a discrete and distinct package, is agreed to have no biological basis: . Also JPL, I agree with you that ethnicity is not race, and I am not trying to conflate the two by putting them in the same category. Instead, recall that our purpose in categorizing is not to give a complex story to the reader, but to help them find a movie; many of the movies in this category are about african americans, which is sometimes called a race (especially in the context of racism, race relations, race riots, etc), and sometimes called an ethnicity. Again, I don't want to rehash all of that. I just think that for now, the category name is inaccurate, as while some of the films may be done from a framework/standpoint of race, others are done from a framework/standpoint of ethnicity, and I really don't want to create and then watch the arguments as people try to sort books into one or the other - so combining is the easiest solution. Besides, the hatnote has said 'race and ethnicity' for a very long time, so this is really just aligning with that. If you want to rename instead to  I would be ok with that as well, but that has downsides too.--KarlB (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The base definition of race is that it is biological. Post-1985 attempts to revise the language cannot hide the fact that through 1980 race was assumed to be biological, and that many people still held this view in 2004.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. I view this nomination as a no-brainer. Of course they are not identical concepts, but it makes no sense to me to have two different categories for all of these—ones for race and one for ethnicity. Why not just group them together since historically the concepts have been closely related to one another? This prevents us from having to make a difficult judgment call on whether the work is "about" the concept of "race" or the concept of "ethnicity". This hair splitting in the category system is counterproductive to creating a useable system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Though I would support deletion too. I don't know that we need this as a category grouping. (Not to mention that such categories are usually filled with presumed members, or we're faced with situations of people with multiple origins of descent, or or or. Better as a list if anything.) - jc37 12:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. The argument that convinces me is that if we created, say, Category:Books by ethnicity. we would have many arguments over which category a book about something like Judaism or Chicanos would fall under. Better to combine the category concepts and avoid splitting hairs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Race and ethnicity are not so different topics.  While they are different, there is sometimes very strong overlap, and it varies from case to case.  And in any case, I find it too hard to believe that many films, plays, works or books about race or about ethnicity are definitively not about the other.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2012 (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:People from islands in the Slate Islands of Scotland

 * 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: administrative close: all three categories were emptied and speedily deleted per G7. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1st category: - Propose deleting people from easdale


 * Nominator's rationale: New Category:People from the Slate Islands is arguably redundant but having two sub-categories with one entry each and little likelihood of expanding them surely is. Ben   Mac  Dui  14:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

per the above. Ben  Mac  Dui  14:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2nd category: - Propose deleting people from seil


 * 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.

Works by time period of setting

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Films by time period of setting to Category:Films by period of setting
 * Propose renaming Category:Novels by time period of setting to Category:Novels by period of setting
 * Nominator's rationale: Some "period" categories use "time period" and others just use "period." The word "time" seems unneeded to me in this context, and possibly for other categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. "Time" is redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
 * Support. I am nominating more "Categories by time period" at April 30. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2012 (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:Isle of Lismore

 * 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 merge to pre-existing, which was created about 40 hours prior to  being created. The first-created category generally has priority until consensus determines otherwise. As noted, if a rename of the category is desired, the best starting place would be a nomination at WP:RM to move Lismore, Scotland to Isle of Lismore. Until the article is moved, the standard convention would be for the category to match the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting isle of lismore


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recently created duplicate of Category:Lismore, Scotland whose parent article is Lismore, Scotland. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deletion of Category:People from the Isle of Lismore at the same time. In this case, there is only one entry and if it is needed at all, it should be moved. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep naming format when disambiguation needed for Island names. See existing cats for other Argyll Islands Category:Isle of Bute and Category:Isle of MullRafikiSykes (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately you have misunderstood the standard procedure (which I admit has a logic that is not altogether helpful at times). This is to name categories after the parent article. We have Isle of Mull and it's category of the same name, but Skye and Category:Skye. I notice you created Category:Isle of Lismore shortly after Category:Lismore, Scotland had been created and moved its entire contents into the new category. It would have been more helpful to propose the category be moved. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentThis category was named after the parent article Isle of Lismore.RafikiSykes (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't . You moved Lismore to "Isle of Lismore" without any discussion and created a duplicate category. I am requesting the redirect "Lismore Scotland" be speedied so that it can be moved back per WP:PLACE. Ben   Mac  Dui  14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was named after the article as the article Isle of Lismore was created first. The category was created after after the article was moved, the name of the previous category was no longer in line with the parent article.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Notethat speedy was declined by an impartial userRafikiSykes (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentAlso note the common use of the name - Isle of Lismore Community Website,  - Walks on the Isle of Lismore and such like. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to rename the article, this isn't the place but do read WP:Place. There is no provision there for this kind of move. Ben   Mac  Dui  14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * REverse merge -- Has this category been emptied out of process? Previous comments suggest that some one has done so, because he disapproved of the change.  We certainly do not need both categories.  The question is which it should be.  We can have "Skye" becasue that is unambiguous.  I think that ending with "Isle of Mull" was the result of a contentious debate.  We cannot have plain "Lismore", because of the town in Co Waterford.  I would suggest that "Isle of Lismore" is the better name of the two, but I am an Englishman and consider this should be settled by the Scots.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I emptied 'Isle of Lismore" and put the articles back into 'Lismore Scotland" whence they came. Apologies of this was out of process, but no-one asked for them to be moved from there in the first place. I am now snookered by the page move and the discussion has started at Talk:Isle of Lismore. For what its worth, the available literature doesn't use "Isle of... ", that tends to be tourist -oriented websites. What a lot of fuss that a little advance communication could have forestalled! Ben   Mac  Dui  15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentIs it ok if I put the articles in both categories for now? Otherwise there is a risk of this category being recommended for deletion purely due to people thinking it is nearly empty.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (without prejudice to future in-process rename) – there seems to have been an out-of-process unilateral creation and population/depopulation followed by an out-of-process article rename. The correct process is (1) propose a move of the article to Isle of Lismore; (2) if this is successful, rename the category via speedy rename. Oculi (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2012 (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:History of Brazil by time

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:History of Brazil by time to Category:History of Brazil by period
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Non-standard and duplicates existing category. Tim! (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's true, other countries' "history by period" categories tend to include their categories by year, century etc. However, IMHO it would be better to move towards "by date" as the head category over millennia, centuries, decades, years and (locally-appropriate) periods. See, for example, Category:Works by date. The top level is Category:Categories by time but I'm thinking that ought to be "by date" too... On the other hand, sorting the millennia/years categories to appear at the start in a "by period" category, followed by specific periods under their initial letters, also works fine where that structure is used. Support. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the "by time" name makes no sense at all, and even if it did, all divisions be they months or millenium are periods.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2012 (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.

Anachronistic soldiers

 * Relisted to: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_22. - jc37 23:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Years in Canadian sports

 * 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: C2C speedy to Category:Canadian sport by year per WP:ENGVAR The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Years in Canadian sports to Category:Canadian sports by year
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge to the more standard format in Category:Sports by country and year. The title could also be Category:Canadian sport by year. I don't really care about the singular/plural issue. Pichpich (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2012 (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.