Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 23

< June 22 June 24 >

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. — ξxplicit 20:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
  1. The {{main}} should be removed from the categories.
  2. The CT categories should be sister categories, rather than daughter categories.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: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)[reply]
Category:Inkscape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Contains only eponymous article, I don't see much potential for growth. Svick (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: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 Category:Convention and exhibition centers is warranted, feel free nominate Category:Convention centers for renaming. — ξxplicit 20:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.