Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 23



Category:British male tennis players

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging


 * Category:English male tennis players to Category:English tennis players and Category:British male tennis players
 * Category:Scottish male tennis players to Category:Scottish tennis players and Category:British male tennis players
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Tennis players represent Great Britain in nearly all notably competitions, not individual home nations. Mayumashu (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge - there is also Category:Scottish female tennis players which fits the same pattern. --Qetuth (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep exisiting. By noms logic why would the players be put in english or scottish categories at all but?Why have gendered british but not gendered by individual countries of the UK? MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have 'gendered British' ones because players represent GB in gendered (men's and boy's, as for this particular nomination) tennis competitions. We have English and Scottish categories for all notable people, so they belong in these categories too, but where most notable tennis players do not represent home nations in (gendered) competitions, it doesn't make sense to have gendered player cats by home nation. Mayumashu (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These categories are sorted as by nationality not what country they are representing for that there are such cats as olympic tennis players of great Britain etc.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose there is no good logic for doing this. There is good reason for the by gender cats, and no good reason to not have them for English and Scottish when we have them for British.  A nomination to get rid of all the English and Scottish cats for tennis players would be a different issue, and I might support it, but I cannot support the proposal here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The good logic is that there are gendered competitions with players representing GB but nearly none (just one, the Commonwealth Games, but many tennis players never play in it) with players representing individual home nations. Mayumashu (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * again all these categories are sorted in parent cats as tennis players by nationality, there are others regarding events and countries represented by them.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - one does not cease to be Scottish or English just because one picks up a tennis racket rather than a squash or badminton racquet. Wearing a t-shirt does not magically erase a person's nationality. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, actually we do not have Category:Scottish male squash players or Category:Scottish male badminton players either, so I think you may be missing the noms point. This nomination has nothing to do with saying they aren't Scottish or English, but is based on WP:Cat gender. We have a Category:Scottish tennis players as a subcategory of British, just as we do for say Category:Scottish engineers or Category:Scottish footballers. However, we do not neccesarily have male and female splits for the whole people tree. There is no Category:Scottish female engineers because gender, while rather lopsided in numbers, is not a defining aspect of ones status as a Scottish engineer, and upmerging that cat if it existed would clearly not be claiming that being an engineer magically erased ones gender (incidentally, only one country, Iran, has a female engineers cat, and it has only one article). While reliable sources may sometimes refer to a tennis player as a 'Scottish tennis player', hence justifying that category, the activity for which their gender is a notable defining characteristic is in competitions where they represent Great Britain. Thus the upmerging into both of the two parent categories. --Qetuth (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted in my oppose below, players in many of the major competitions do not actually represent any country.
 * Also, Qetuth's comparison with engineers is misplaced. At almost every level of the sport, tennis competitions are rigidly divided by gender; that is not the case with engineering. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the nomination is based on the false premise that "tennis players represent Great Britain" (which incidentally is also not a sovereign country). In fact, many of the major tournaments (including the 4 Grand Slam competitions) are open competitions, where players compete as individuals rather than as representatives of a nation. For example, at the 2012 Wimbledon Men's Singles, the 20 seeded players included 6 Spaniards, 3 Americans, 2 Argentines, 2 Swiss, and 4 French players; they qualified on their individual merits rather than as members of a national team. As such, they may be supported by people in their own countries, but they do not represent those countries. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is routine for people of Scottish, English or Welsh nationality to be categorised as such. Sportpsepople are no exception to this rule, which is why we have Category:English tennis players, Category:Scottish tennis players and Category:Welsh male tennis players. The nomination provides no reason for disregarding the nationality of male tennis players, while keeping it for tennis players of unspecified gender (The nominator did not include Category:English tennis players, Category:Scottish tennis players and  Category:Welsh male tennis players).
 * Comment - This issue is not as clear as I first thought. However, the official draws and publications of these events list the country for which a competitor is competing, prominently, almost every time they mention their name. Also that the unequal numbers from different nations does not preclude representation - Grand Slam entry statistics are almost identical to what you would find at recent Olympics, with the exception that the Olympics does not currently allow doubles teams of mixed nationality. Whether GB is a sovereign country is not as relevant as that the letters GBR are appended to, say, Andy Murray (to use the obvious example) whenever he competes. As for my engineering comments, I was thinking from the initial point of view that tennis players should be categorised nationally just as they are within their sport (and by gender as well), then trying to justify why the Scottish and English non-gendered cats should not also be deleted. Rereading, it, it does not really do anything to convince me that Category:Scottish tennis players should exist. --Qetuth (talk) 06:38, 9 December 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:American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting american people of pennsylvania dutch descent


 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people, whose prose defines itself as being reserved for Americans. Furthermore, only three people in the category.  p  b  p  17:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This category is not redundant to Pennsylvania Dutch people. Being Pennsylvania Dutch implies being part of a specific ethnicity, which is a much higher part of inclusion than just being of that descent.  It is the same genderla difference as seen in Category:Cherokee people and Category:American people of Cherokee descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you're trying to make a distinction being ethnicity and descent that doesn't really exist, and even if it did, wouldn't be a justification for a category this small in size p  b  p  18:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet again we hear the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. But this is apples and oranges with the Cherokee case. As you can see by reading the cat descriptions, "Cherokee people" is reserved for people actually enrolled in those tribes. That is distinct from ethnicity: that is more akin to citizenship. The "American people of Cherokee descent" describes ethnicity separate from enrollment. Pennsylvania Dutch is an ethnic group without an associated concept of official membership or enrollment. Elizium23 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. User: John Pack Lambert is right - ethnicity and descent are two entirely different things. (Agreeing on whether someone is of a particular ethnicity or descent of that ethnicity can be hard, and likely some individuals should be described as both or, perhaps, the two category types should be merged, but that doesn't mean at all that the two are the same.) Mayumashu (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Those who are proposing to keep both categories should be aware that plenty of people who aren't strictly Penn. Dutch are being added to Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people, so not merging the two is going to be a problem lacking a continuing program of policing the category. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly recently created category. There is no reason to assume that once the current articles are moved to the right category later growth will not go to the right category.  I would be willing to try to move the articles into the correct category if both are kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename -- Category:People of Pennsylvania Dutch descent. This may well be useful for people of mixed descent, who might not qualify for the target.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the "descent" categories are no more than ethnicity categories imposed by WP using the One Drop Rule. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I simply find this confusing.  The requirements for inclusion are ancestor immigration from Alsace and settled in PA within a two century window.  Not sure if you had to settle there immediately, but apparently you did not have to arrive directly from Alsace.  But then I have a problem in general with descent categories since there is no real criteria for establishing this.  Neither time or percentage of blood.  So if one had a predecessor 60 generations ago and self identified we would allow that.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 30 November 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:Adi Shakti Peethas

 * 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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting adi shakti peethas


 * Nominator's rationale: I could not find any references saying that the four mentioned are could Adi Shakti Pithas. WP:OR in Shakti Peetha article Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * keep? The problem is that the only possible main article, Shakti Peethas, doesn't explain what makes this subgroup of the 52 locations distinct as a subset. If not kept, it needs to be upmerged into Category: Shakti Peethas. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge as unreferenced, possibly OR. If a source distinguishing these 4, and giving this name for them, becomes available, it can always be readded to the article and the category can be recreated then. --Qetuth (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The creator said that (User_talk:Redtigerxyz) it was based on Adi Shakti Peethas section in Shakti Peethas article, which I have removed per Talk:Shakti_Peethas. I have not evidence in reliable references that "Adi Shakti Pithas" is not a WP:OR. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Shakti Peethas. There is no reason to subdivide the category in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the result of template based on same OR. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 09:04, 6 December 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:Saturday Night Live cast members

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting saturday night live cast members


 * Nominator's rationale: Deleted multiple times (the last was a speedy delete citing the last deletion before that), as there is no scheme of Category:Television actors by series. Cf. Category:Saturday_Night_Live_writers —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (as category creator). First, to clarify, the category has only been deleted twice, and the first time (which prompted the speedy delete the second time) was as part of a mass nomination of TV/film actor categories. In that discussion, the only specific mention of SNL was a vote by User:SnowFire to keep it as an exception: "Category:Saturday Night Live cast members is a little bit different to my understanding; that's a bit more similar to the equivalent of a 'college alumni' category except for comedy, and often times gets hyped for actors (example: Category:Second City alumni). I would tentatively vote keep for this, or at the least urge a separate CFD to consider the question. While it is rare to see 'Bob Smith, who was in (random TV show or movie series)' all the time, SNL really does seem to eternally tag an actor such that it is always mentioned about them in the press." I agree with this logic. Being a cast member of Saturday Night Live--where the cast are introduced as themselves, write much of their own material, become known for the variety of roles they play -- is much more of a defining characteristic than simply filling a role on a standard sitcom or drama. If SNL were a stage show, like Second City, instead of a TV show, I don't think there'd be a push to delete the category, and I don't see why being televised should make a difference. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be a widespread categorization scheme for the casts of stage shows. There's no categories for the companies of Broadway shows for instance. Buck Winston (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I probably would've deleted "Keep" in the mass nomination, or at the very least argued that the nomination should be split p  b  p  19:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a notable aspect of these performers.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the standard for having a category. Buck Winston (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:OC Categories such as these have been deleted time and time again because it will just lead to overcategorization of actors by series. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a performer by performance category, and we do not do such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is no different from any other performer by performance category. It's not special or an exception. It is not a college alumni category. A list is sufficient, or if someone really felt ambitious they could build one or more templates to sort the casts by seasons or eras or whatnot. Buck Winston (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify (if necessary) then delete -- We do not like performance by performer categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - the category seems to be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:OC. I do tend to agree with the arguments made by Theoldsparkle, however; and if there were not already a list of SNL cast members, I would lean toward keeping this category. But given that such a list already exists (Saturday Night Live cast members), there is no especially compelling reason to maintain the category. (If the category is deleted, is there a way to keep editors from re-creating it, so as to avoid these CfDs in the future?) Dezastru (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has been deleted many, many times under a variety of names and capitalization combinations per WP:OC. Nothing has changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OC. Since Saturday Night Live cast members already exists as an article, the category isn't necessary since we're not lacking the information. I'm aware that WP:CLN allows for categories and lists to coexist in some cases — but it doesn't require them to coexist in all cases. If there are other valid reasons why one or the other should be deleted, such as violating WP:OC, then one or the other can be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete performer by performance, no satisfactory explanation of why this policy is offbase has been proffered. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete per Bearcat. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Having been a member of the SNL cast is not as common as being an actor of a random series. I see SNL as the Académie française of Comedy: Excuse me for the comparison, but to me SNL is for comedy (in US) what the Académie française is for literature (in FR): like an achievement, the highest rank in a domain; a few comedians are able to access to the cast. I see this category more like the Category:Members of the Académie française for example. DeansFA (talk) 16:07, 9 December 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:Dandy

 * 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: listify at Dandy.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Dandy to Category:Dandies
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This page contained only Dandy, Flâneur and Quaintrelle (which I have proposed should be merged into Dandy), a work of fiction and one biography. I have added more biographies where this is supported within each article. Renaming to the plural seems natural; but perhaps the proper outcome would be "listify (in Dandy) and delete" after all. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Change to lists in article: "Works of Fiction about Dandies" and "People Famous for Being Dandies" (and after hastily scanning the article about Andy Warhol, I'm not convinced he should be in the second list). DavidLeeLambert (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify per DavidLeeLambert. The fact that the category mixed fictional and real people is not a good sign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete per above comments. Note that Category:Dandies was deleted here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 26 November 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:Fictional trans men

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Fictional trans men to Category:Fictional transsexuals
 * Propose merging Category:Fictional trans women to Category:Fictional transsexuals
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Too underpopulated of a category to be split up. Dohayecarumbadoh (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment, is it possible there are more articles and redirects that can be placed in the categories? 117Avenue (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. No need for this split into even less populated categories than its already low populated parent cat. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 07:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge There is no need for overly specific fictional cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - overly specific gendered categories which are unneeded per WP:CATGRS. Buck Winston (talk) 23:33, 24 November 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:Sega Mega Drive

 * 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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sega Mega Drive to Category:Sega Genesis
 * Nominator's rationale: The main article's title is Sega Genesis, after several long discussion and move discussions at Talk:Sega Genesis. Also nominating the following categories for renaming:

This could fall under C2D, but I would rather someone agree with me that it is C2Dable. Izno (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Sega Mega Drive games -> Category:Sega Genesis games
 * Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive games -> Category:Cancelled Sega Genesis games
 * Category:Mega Drive game covers -> Category:Covers of Sega Genesis games
 * Category:Screenshots of Sega Mega Drive games -> Category:Screenshots of Sega Genesis games
 * Category:Sega Mega Drive-only games -> Category:Sega Genesis-only games
 * Support per nom, and move request -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename to match parent. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the idea because the people in my local area always referred to it as the Sega Genesis; never as the Sega Mega Drive. GVnayR (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency. Leaving category redirects (at least for the parent) wouldn't hurt - the current name is a quite plausible search term. --Qetuth (talk) 01:23, 25 November 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:American actors of Pakistani descent

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge Category:American actors of Pakistani descent to Category:American people of Pakistani descent and Category:American actors
 * Nominator's rationale according to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality we are told "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." This category covers a trivial instersection with no scholarly study of it as such, so it should be deleted per guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe merge with Category:American actors of Indian descent into Category:American actors of South Asian descent? – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge-and-rename. Note List of Pakistani actors, List of Indian film actors and List of Indian film actresses;  but this is American actors of (X) descent,  much smaller.  Besides,  where would we put someone who emigrated before the 1947 partition? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the South Asian descent proposal. We have not created any Category:American people of South Asian descent because there is no clear indication that such an ethnicity exists in the US.  The fact that the census classifies people from India together without those from the rest of South Asia makes this a truly unworkable concept in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the nominated categories as nominated and neutral for now on having broader regional groupings, such as American actors of South Asian descent, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:American actors of South Asian descent (create the latter if it doesn't already exist). In contrast to, say, religion or ethnicity not differently affecting the work of athletes (so we don't have a category for Roman Catholic basketball players), acting is one area in which ethnic background does influence many roles that actors take. The current category, Category:American actors of Pakistani descent, is so small that a WP article couldn't be written discussing the topic. However, an article could be written discussing Category:American actors of South Asian descent, a group which subsumes Category:American actors of Pakistani descent. Many Americans do identify as South Asian as a larger ethnic grouping (there are a number of South Asian societies and associations, especially on college campuses. There's even a South Asian and Lesbian and Gay Association of New York City). Dezastru (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete nn triple intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:02, 28 November 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:Indian medical 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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting indian medical journals


 * Nominator's rationale: Years ago, there was a discussion in the WikiProject Academic Journals about country-specifi categories for academic journals (German journals, American journals, etc) and it was decided to abolish them. There were good reasons for this and the current category aptly demonstrates the problems: most journals that are currently contained in this cat are published by Medknow Publications which, until recently, was indeed a purely Indian publisher. However, almost a year ago, the company became a full subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, a company registered in the Netherlands. Should we now categorize all these journals as "Dutch medical journals"? Of course not. The reality of academic publishing today is that it is a very international enterprise. Even most journals that have the name of a country in their title will have people from all over the world in their editorial boards. Often, the editor-in-chief will live in a different country. Large publishers like Wolters Kluwer, Elsevier, or Springer will have multiple headquarters, in different countries. Authors will be from all over the world, the actual production of the journal (typesetting and such) will be in yet other countries, in short, although things might be clear for some of the journals in this category, for many others this will not be the case. What to do, for example, with a journal originally published by Blackwell (UK, since a few years a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, USA, but still with major offices in Oxford where many of their publishers are still based), typeset in Singapore, printed in Malaysia, and edited by a Dutchman living in France? Tagging journals like those contained in this category with the appropriate medical field category and then, if one really thinks a country-specific category is needed, with "Medical research in India" is a much better solution. A final consideration may be that if there still somewhere exists something like a journal that is completely specific to one particular country (editors, editorial board, authors, and publishers all based in that country) chances are very large that such a journal would not be notable, because that simply is not the way any more that science is being done nowadays. Randykitty (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Medical journals because otherwise this will be removed from that category and there is no reason to do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * John, please note that each and every one of the entries in this cat is also in the appropriate medical specialty cat (such as "Oncology journals"), which are all subcats of 'medical journals". --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete based on the journals already being in appropriate medical specialty cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete; with stuff now being made in different countries, there's no reason to have nation-specific for stuff like academic journals and stuff that can be made in other countries for cheaper than they can be made at home. All our food comes from China now. Do we refer to everything that is grown as "Chinese cuisine?" Everything is made from plastic and is exported from China. Do we call them "Chinese automobiles," "Chinese toys," and "Chinese paper products?" We just say no and slap a "made in China" seal on them anyway. Everything is international now; there is no such thing as a "true Canadian product" or a "true American product." GVnayR (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not oppose the deletion, since as noted, the journals are also categorized by specialty & country. I would point out, however, that calling these kinds of country-specific categories invalid because the publishers or editors are not necessarily from the country in question is misguided. The country tag usually serves two purposes. It is an indication that the content published in the journal is specifically relevant to people living in the country. In many cases, it may also be an indication that the journal is issued by a medical society that identifies itself in terms of its relationship with a particular country; qualifications for membership in such societies vary (in some cases society by-laws may even require that members be citizens or practice in the specific countries), but in most, the subject of interest of the society is the medical needs of the people of the particular country. "All our food comes from China now. Do we refer to everything that is grown as 'Chinese cuisine'? ... Everything is international now; there is no such thing as a 'true Canadian product' or a 'true American product.'" Actually, medical needs still vary quite a bit by location, certainly by national location. You may be able to buy a car made in China and operate it without a hitch in Argentina, but trying to apply information based on a study of Chinese patients in Argentina might make for very unhappy patients and doctors. The demographics of patient populations vary by location. The laws governing medical practice vary by location. The epidemiology of diseases, available treatments, sociocultural expectations of medical providers and patients all vary by national location. Journals focused on the medical needs of patients in wealthy Western countries in temperate climates often address different issues than what may be relevant to patients and care providers in other countries. Dezastru (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You are absolutely right that different regions face sometimes different medical needs. However, all these journals branded "Indian" do not exclusively focus on the health needs of India, nor do journals that don't have the word "India" (or are published elsewhere) ignore medical issues specific to the Indian region. I don't think that we can categorize journals on the basis of our (subjective) judgment of their contents. --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment with a couple of exceptions (which should probably be purged), all are branded "Indian Journal of"; one other has "India" in the name. Is not their branding sufficient to unite them?  I would suggest the addition of a headnote dealing with the nationality issue.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment See the remark below about the Indian-published British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research. I suspect the publisher named this journal to have some people think that this was the BMJ, although the latter probably took some (legal?) action as the journal's website now carries a disclaimer that it is not the BMJ... Note that its publisher, SCIENCEDOMAIN international is on Beall's list of predatory publishers. Beall notes that this apparently India-based publisher names its journals "American" or "British". In summary, I don't think that we should take the branding of a journal as criteria to include it in a country-specific category either. For the moment, none of the journals of this particular publisher are notable, but they may well become notable in future (if they publish something really egregious, for example, or if reliable sources report on their shady practices) and then we might have an article on them, posing the question where to categorize them. --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per comments of Dezastru and Peterkingiron.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Many journals have the name of a country or region in their name. For example, the European Journal of Neuroscience. Should we categorize this one as a "European journal"? One of the editors is based in Europe, the other in the US. The publisher was originally British (Blackwell Publishing), but is now a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons. The editorial board contains members from all over the world, the same goes for article authors. So does this belong in "American journals" (publisher, editor, board members, and authors), "British journals" (original publisher and editor at that time), "European journal" (name and the other editor), or even "French journals" (the other editor is based in France)? I agree that for a few journals, things may be straightforward. However, the example of EJN shows that if we start categorizing journals by country/region, we open the doors to endless debates. Academic publishing is international nowadays. Some journals with a very long history have taken the consequences of this: the British Medical Journal now calls itself BMJ, for example (making it clear that BMJ is not to be seen as an acronym of the former title). --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another example (for the moment not notable): the British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research, which apparently is published by an Indian owned company, with a Russian chief editor... --Randykitty (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - None of the articles in the category indicate that they focus on the health needs of India. One indicates it specialises in the health needs of the developing world, but the rest have nothing of the sort. Other than specific health needs, the other suggested reasonings for what makes a journal Indian have included by name/branding (which we should not be categorising by, and is often deliberately misleading in the journal industry), or by publisher (all but one of these journals are published by Medknow and in the appropriate by publisher category). There is no indication that Indian medical journals are in some way different from non-Indian medical journals, and a full by country split is unwanted and likely unworkable. --Qetuth (talk) 04:40, 10 December 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.