March 19
Category:Fictional characters by origin usually ending in H
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 12:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Not all fictional characters are "people," and renaming to Category:Fictional foo characters or fictional foo doesn't sound quite right. I am open to suggestions though. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support changing all to "______ fictional characters" provided that all other subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by origin are changed in the same fashion. Otherwise, leave it as-is. — CharlotteWebb 01:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Tacking on Category:Fictional people from London and also Category:Fictional transgendered people as it would be left as an odd-one out and is an uncontroversial move.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all including the two others that Zythe found. — coelacan — 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose "British fictional characters" could also be interpreted to mean "characters from British fiction". More thinking is needed about the right wording for this rename: the present proposal is ambiguous. Jheald 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per JhealdOsomec 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC) NB There is only one T in Scots. Osomec 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People who have had Tommy John surgery
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:People who have had Tommy John surgery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Categorizing people by the various medical procedures they have had is not a good idea. Tommy John surgery in particular is non-defining for an individual. What's next? Category:People who have had tummy tucks, Category:People who have had laser vision correction, Category:People who have had hip replacements, Category:People who have had open-heart surgery, Category:People who have been circumcised. C'mon. This should best be a list included in the article Tommy John surgery. Carlossuarez46 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, do not listify - categorizing or listing people by most if not all medical procedures is overcategorization. Otto4711 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The category system is not a database tool. The article should give some examples, but that will be sufficient. Wilchett 02:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Doczilla 07:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, don't listify as per Otto4711. --rimshotstalk 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete trivial, non defining. --Xdamrtalk 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 15:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Scandinavian British Columbians
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Scandinavian British Columbians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, inappropriate intersection by ethnicity and location per WP:OCAT. Kevlar67 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One step too far. Wilchett 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ski resorts in Serbia
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename Category:Ski resorts in Serbia to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Serbia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in Serbia to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Serbia
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match the categories for most other countries. Not all skiing takes place in a resort as such. Wilchett 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Iron Man films
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge Category:Iron Man films into Category:Films based on Marvel comics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Iron Man films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Upmerge into Category:Films based on Marvel comics. There are only two Iron Man films, neither have which have been released. Unlike X-Men, Blade or Spider-Man, Iron Man is not a film franchise. Wasn't this category deleted before anyway, along with "Captain America films"? ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rules
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, completely useless mega-overgeneralization category. The articles in here should be categorized under the topics to which they pertain. Taken to its logical conclusion this category would have tens of thousands of articles in it some day. We might as well have a Category:Things if we keep this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vague, useless category. Doczilla 22:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wilchett 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Too broad to be of any real use. --Xdamrtalk 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. And yet it does hold a very specific subset of articles, the numbers of which do not run into the tens of thousands. At the very least, it seems that categories for game rules and sports rules could be created, but what does that really change? –Unint 15:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Sports rules might work, though is less than essential, but this is not that category. Olborne 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Much too broad. Something like Category:Sports rules would be OK, if anyone cared to create it. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Gilberto Silva
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Gilberto Silva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, looks like it was created by mistake by a new user. Catchpole 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A moderately prominent footballer should not have his own category. Choalbaton 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Anyone may have their own eponymous category so long as there is content with which to fill it. This means that we need a substantial number of directly relevant articles. This does not.
- Xdamrtalk 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it used to hold two articles, both Gilberto Silva and Gilberto Silva goals, but the latter was deleted. As a result it is not very useful now and should be deleted. Qwghlm 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reason to exist at the current point. Punkmorten 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Qwghlm. Daemonic Kangaroo 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't think it's feasible to have a category for an individual player, seeing as we could end up with a whole load of categories containing one or two articles each.Bigmike 19:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Confessed terrorism targets of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as non-defining. We don't really need a category for everything. -- Prove It (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A list or a description in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be appropriate in this situation. Dr. Submillimeter 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per the above and because it's nonsensically named ("I confess I am a terrorism target!") — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. David Kernow (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom as non-defining, and also as POV and unverifiable; there are credible (though unproven) allegations by human rights groups that these confessions were extracted through torture, and the alleged list of targets comes only from reports of his captors, and has not been tested in a court of law. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A confession is not proof of guilt, as has been demonstrated all too often at trial, (or sadly at appeal, or after death in custody). Wilchett 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All the reasons already provided are good ones, and it's a silly categorization scheme too (there's my not-so-good reason, but hey, it is.) — coelacan — 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. Choalbaton 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:World Book Capital
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Template ((World Book Capital)) (Template:World Book Capital) exists and is somewhat better in providing context information. I suggest to remove the category as redundant and non-defining. Pavel Vozenilek 15:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a defining characteristic of the cities. Serves mainly to promote the festival. Choalbaton 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree with nom that the template does a better job of conveying this info. Recury 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, template works better and seems better organised. Wpktsfs 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-defining. No objection to this being listified if someone wants to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Comic Relief Does The Apprentice
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 20:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Comic Relief Does The Apprentice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Performer by performance. The program is a one-off charity fund-raiser spin-off. No need to listify, as there is already a comprehensive list at Comic Relief Does The Apprentice. RobertG ♬ talk 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Categorizing performer by performance is not feasible in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per the above. I created the category, but only as a replacement for Category:Celebrity Apprentice after the show's name was announced. I have no problem with its deletion alltogether. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Arizona State University professors
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Arizona State University faculty to fix a typo in the nomination. Vegaswikian 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Arizona State University professors to Category:Arizona State Univeristy faculty
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention. Piccadilly 13:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Images not licensed under GFDL
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Images not licensed under GFDL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No point in grouping images by a characteristic they don't have. Category is unused, anyway. Abu badali (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Honbicot 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete this would become hopelessly huge. If it were to exist, it would just be a super-category to ((fairuse)) etc. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above unless there is some WP reason for this cat, like the infamous living people one. Carlossuarez46 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. VegaDark 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Actors who have portrayed Jesus
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Actors who have portrayed Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Real-time strategy computer games
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename Category:Real-time strategy computer games to Category:Real-time strategy video games. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Real-time strategy computer games to Category:Real-time strategy video games
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, well, all other categories have been renamed from "computer games" to "video games". MrStalker 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy both all of these: This issue was already decided a week or so back; this one and the one immediately below are just stragglers that got missed in the mass rename. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, but I wasn't sure if it qualified for speedy deletion. --MrStalker 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Strategy computer games
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename Category:Strategy computer games to Category:Strategy video games. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Strategy computer games to Category:Strategy video games
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, well, all other categories have been renamed from "computer games" to "video games". MrStalker 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Command & Conquer series
Category:Command & Conquer
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename Category:Command & Conquer to Category:Command & Conquer images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Command & Conquer to
Category:Command & Conquer media Category:Command & Conquer images
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category only contains images, all C&C-related articles is located under Category:Command & Conquer series. MrStalker 10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, the main thing is that it must be moved. If it's called C&C images or C&C media doesn't matter. --MrStalker 13:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Global Defence Initiative
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Global Defense Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, images in this sub-category are already included in main category and fits better there. MrStalker 10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Surgical abortion and Category:Medical abortion
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Upmerge. --Xdamrtalk 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Methods of abortion. Both cats are very small, and as a result the parent cat is empty. This is needless subcategorization. Sure, there is a distinction, but there is also a distinction between the individual articles in each cat, and an overly fine granularity in categorization is not helpful in finding anything. >Radiant< 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge per nom. Doczilla 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Category:Medical abortion, upmerge Category:Surgical abortion. My concern is that if Category:Medical abortion is removed, that Mifepristone and Misoprostol, not specifically "methods", will necessarily be removed from Category:Methods of abortion. These chemicals will then have no place other than Category:Abortifacients, which includes various toxic substances such as Ergot. Joie de Vivre 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New proposal I proposed this at Category talk:Abortion by kind, however that category was speedy deleted. I propose that we RENAME Category:Methods of abortion to something a little more broad, such as "abortion by kind" or "types of abortion". Then we KEEP both Category:Surgical abortion and Category:Medical abortion as subcats of the newly renamed parent cat. We then put in the newly renamed parent cat the harder to categorize articles miscarriage, self-induced abortion, late-term abortion, and selective reduction, which are all articles about specific types or groupings of abortion that are not necessarily medical procedures. This is a compromise between Severa, who wants to have 5 or 6 subcats each with only a small handful of articles, and Joie de Vivre who wants to bump up the 4 aforementioned miscellaneous articles to the main abortion cat.-Andrew c 01:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that people are creating overly many small categories on the topic. It would make more sense to have a single, broader-defined cat. >Radiant< 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Such a "broadly defined cat" would allow the inclusion of non-medical terms like late-term abortion or partial birth abortion to a category intended to list specific abortion procedures. Some (User:Ferrylodge) have even argued that Feticide, usually caused by a blow to the abdomen, should be placed alongside such articles as Surgical abortion. What is the purpose of the category if a form of assault is included in the same category as a medical procedure? I am concerned that certain pro-life editors will fill a broader-defined category with similar decisions. The Category:Methods of abortion is absolutely necessary to prevent POV-pushing. An original, related discussion was held here in early March. Joie de Vivre 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New proposal: Create Category:Miscellaneous forms of abortion. Description: "This category holds articles related to forms of abortion which are not specific medical procedures. See also: Category:Methods of abortion." Place miscarriage, self-induced abortion, late-term abortion, and selective reduction in this category. This category could be made a subcat of Category:Abortion and would not require burying or diluting of Category:Methods of abortion, which the other proposals suggest. Joie de Vivre 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand your concern of having the category on medical procedures buried, but part of me would like to see the medical procedures category as a subcat of a less specific 'forms' category. But I could live with your proposal (and if we keep the misc. seperate from the procedures, I would support upmerging the surgical category and keeping the medical cat).-Andrew c 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, question: I'm in agreement about the utility of Category:Methods of abortion. I'm not sure that it needs to be subdivided like this, though. Is it really wrong to include Mifepristone and Misoprostol in Category:Methods of abortion? They seem like methods to me. Perhaps the category description could just explicitly make this clear? I'm not sure; I'd appreciate feedback. — coelacan — 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: They seem like methods to me too, but I believe that Severa, judging by their past decisions, will take advantage of the slightest ambiguity and remove them to the Abortifacients category. That is why I support upmerging the Surgical cat but keeping the Medical cat. Joie de Vivre 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Given the size of Category:Methods of abortion, there is no reason for the category system to get involved in the classification issues referred to above. Cloachland 13:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Cloachland. Osomec 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Andrew c's proposal: Create Category:Types of abortion per precedent set by Category:Categories by type. Keep Category:Surgical abortion and keep Category:Medical abortion as subcategories of Category:Types of abortion to preserve distinction between standard medical procedures and everything else. Small subcategories with only a few articles in them have precedent (see Category:Types of buses, Category:Types of clothing, etc.), but, for me, the real measure of whether subcategorization is worthwhile or superfluous is whether the distinction it makes is useful. Does Category:Poncho really need to be separate from Category:Robes and cloaks, or Category:Jackets from Category:Coats? Obviously, I don't edit fashion-related articles, so I wouldn't know. But I do know that the distinction between surgical abortion and medical abortion is a logical one, so the subcategorization is not arbitrarily-based, and I don't think it's excessive. Delete Category:Methods of abortion per Radiant's concerns over empty subcategories. -Severa (!!!) 20:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Methods of abortion is clear, specific, and useful. An amorphous "Types of abortion" category would allow for forms of assault (Feticide) and pro-life misnomers (late-term abortion) to be mixed in with actual medical procedures. Even Andrew c said he could live with my proposal, and that he understood my concern that Category:Methods of abortion should not be buried. It appears to me that you have some great prejudice against this category, despite its proven specificity and accuracy. Joie de Vivre 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have nothing against the "Methods of abortion" category. Basically, the "Methods of abortion" and "Surgical/Medical abortion" categories would serve the same function, ensuring that the modern procedures are divided from the leftovers. I don't care if it's nested "Types of abortion -> Methods of abortion," or "Types of abortion -> Medical/Surgical abortion," because either would work. Radient expressed concern over overcategorization, so I thought, why not trim the fat, since the "Methods of abortion" and "Surgical/Medical" cats essentially do the same thing? The misc. articles on things like late-term abortion and self-induced abortion would go under "Types of abortion," while the articles on standard procedures would go under "Methods" or "Surgical/Medical," ensuring that there would be no "mixing" of one thing with the other. There is only so much that can be done in the way of tailoring a category in order to proactively avoid any issues. I once tried to save myself the trouble of having to routinely winnow out musicians and actors who were sorted into Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists by creating new thematic subcategories for such articles to go into, but, those were AfD'd. The long-short of it is that you can't account for everything in the design of category. Misuses of Category:Types of abortion would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as misuses of Category:Pro-life activists and Category:Pro-choice activists currently are. Andrew c and I have both put forward proposals which we think address both your main concerns (separating the medical procedures of "everything else") and my concerns (preserving the integrity of the categorization system), but, there's only so much that can be done toward that end. One can't have their cake and eat it too. That's the nature of compromise. I think Andrew c's proposal is entirely workable and about as agreeable to everyone as we're going to come — Category:Types of abortion would have precedent under Category:Categories by type. -Severa (!!!) 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If you have nothing against Category:Methods of abortion, then please retract your suggestion above that it be deleted. Andrew c has expressed willingness towards my suggestion. You are the sole opposer here. Joie de Vivre 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do you agree it should be nested "Types of abortion -> Methods of abortion" per the precedent set by Category:Categories by type, then? Andrew c and I have both proposed "Types of abortion." I'm willing to cut down the number of categories in my original proposal (i.e., no "Surgical abortion" or "Medical abortion"). But I think it's important to preserve the logical "flow" of categorization. Are you willing to have "Methods of abortion" listed as a subset of "Types" in order to reach a compromise solution? -Severa (!!!) 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Absolutely not, but certainly you already knew that, per our previous discussion. Specific medical procedures must not be buried beneath a mishmash of miscellany. The contents of your suggested "Forms of abortion"-like category are a miscellaneous catch-all, per our previous discussion, which resulted in Category:Forms of abortion being deleted. They should not be nested in the manner you suggest.
- Furthermore, I am a little sick of you using the word "compromise" to describe a situation where your proposed solution has changed only in name. What, exactly have you offered in this so-called "compromise"? Joie de Vivre 01:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [edit conflict]I used to believe that everything needs to have a logical categorization structure. This changed when I started work on the illuminated manuscript parent category. I wanted to put the category "Gospel Books" in a tree that would look like Gospel Books-> Illuminated Biblical Manuscripts-> Christian Illuminated Manuscripts-> Illuminated Manuscripts. But another user objected to this and wanted the tree to look like Gospel Books-> Illuminated Manuscripts. The argument was that the MOST well known and important illuminated manuscripts, such as the Book of Kells, should not be buried in 4 layers of categories. As Joie de Vivre is saying, the "types of abortion" proposed tree is placing "feticide" and "late term abortion" and "self induced abortion" lower down on the tree than the legit medical procedures. While I completely acknowledge that the "types of abortion" proposal is the most logical form, I think the best compromise (and the one that lets the user find what they are looking for easiest) is to have a methods category and a miscellaneous forms category, as Joie proposed. I have become convinced that the legit medical procedures deserve to have a lower place on the categorization tree, and do not need to be buried behind articles dealing with criminal activity and partisan terminology.-Andrew c 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Joie de Vivre, why are you dismissing my entirely reasonable concerns for maintaining the integrity of the WikiProject Abortion categorization system out of hand? You have not even taken them into consideration, whereas I have tried multiple times to address your main concern, which is that the medical procedures be separated from everything else. I believe that dividing articles relating to specific procedures into a separate sub-category of "Types of abortion" accomplishes this; it makes it clear to browsers what is a specific procedure and what is not. Now you don't want the "Methods of abortion" category to be "buried" under the "Types of abortion" category, even though the hierarchy is a big improvement over what was in my first proposal, because it's not "Abortion by kind -> Induced abortion -> Methods of abortion -> Surgical/Medical abortion." Perhaps Category:Biological warfare should not be buried under Category:Warfare by type. I don't understand why you think your way is the only way, Joie de Vivre; the exact same thing is going on at Talk:Birth control between yourself and Lyrl at the moment. The essence of compromise is in working together with other editors and trying to reach a solution that is agreeable to everyone. No categorization system is going to make everyone completely happy, because you can't account for everything, so we're all going to have to settle a little bit. If I'd only been interested in all-or-nothing, my-way-or-the-highway, I'd have rejected your concerns out of hand, and not even attempted to accommodate them in any fashion. I'd have said Category:Forms of abortion was perfectly sufficient and that we didn't need to address your concerns in any manner. Is it unreasonable for me to expect that other editors would extend the same consideration to my concerns as I extend to theirs? Regarding feticide, this should not be sorted into "Types of abortion," and regarding Late-term abortion, this is not a partisan term (see Talk:Late-term abortion and this diff). -Severa (!!!) 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is getting long, and I fear, out of place. Would interested parties please continue the discussion to find a solution at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Abortion/Categorization? Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (off-topic comment by Joie de Vivre moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Abortion/Categorization)
- This discussion is supposed to be about whether Surgical and Medical abortion cats should be upmerged to Methods of abortion cat. Look above, and you tell me who pulled this off-track. Joie de Vivre 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replied to you on the subpage which I linked to above. If you wish for this discussion to stay on track, then please reply on this page. Thank you. -Severa (!!!) 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Spouses of polygamists
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Spouses of polygamists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. I recently closed the CFD debate about Category:Polygamists as a clear delete. Soon afterwards, this category was brought to my attention. If the previous discussion is anything to go by, I think this probably ought to be deleted too. RobertG ♬ talk 08:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific to Category:Currencies of Asia
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The template used to fill the category used to be ((Currencies of Asia and the Pacific)). This was split into ((Currencies of Asia)) which still filled the same category, and ((Currencies of Oceania)) which fills Category:Currencies of Oceania which is parallel to this cat, not a subcat of Currencies of Asia and the Pacific. So, what was in this category related only to Asia, not Asia and the Pacific. I already updated the template to fill the new category. This is a non-controversial move, but the category and its talk page are non-empty, so I didn't know if it was appropriate to just make them redirects. Ingrid 03:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of Wikipedians by number of edits
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Lists of Wikipedians by number of edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Formerly contained Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (I already upmerged this). I don't see a point in having this category when the parent category already takes care of these lists. --- RockMFR 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I think that the presence of 'county' is adequate disambiguation, aside from the fact that present naming matches articles with categories. I endorse BrownHairedGirl's point re. the other Irish cities though.
- Xdamrtalk 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:CLAMP
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Clamp (manga artists). Vegaswikian 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:CLAMP to Category:Clamp
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Capitalization, per recent discussion which moved CLAMP -> Clamp (manga artists) - Neier 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per nom. Category:CLAMP images and Category:CLAMP cast members require the same treatment. - Cyrus XIII 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to speedy those, once we establish the precedent for the categories here. Neier 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename - The categories should automatically be renamed to match the corresponding article. We do not need to repeat the debate here. Dr. Submillimeter 08:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename using "Clamp (manga artists)" - The unsigned comment below is correct. Still, the category should be renamed to match the article. Dr. Submillimeter 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely we need more disambiguation than this. The manga group isn't the first thing one would think of when they see Category:Clamp. Recury 13:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Clamp (manga artists), that sounds OK. (forgot to sign before, oopsie). Recury 13:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose clamp is waaaay too generic. Why wouldn't this be a category for clamps? 132.205.44.134 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because then it would be Category:Clamps, given that the name of the mangakas is a proper noun without a plural. - Cyrus XIII 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: "Clamp" makes me think of clamps. CLAMP makes me think of manga and anime. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The suggestion for "Clamp (manga artists)" is acceptable, as it eliminates the potential confusion with a clamp, while also eliminating the abuse of capital letters that WP:MOSCAPS discourages. Neier 05:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.