Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 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. -- X damr  talk 12:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Category:Fictional British people → Category:British fictional characters
 * Category:Fictional Dutch people → Category:Dutch fictional characters
 * Category:Fictional English people → Category:English fictional characters
 * Category:Fictional Irish people → Category:Irish fictional characters
 * Category:Fictional Portuguese people → Category:Portuguese fictional characters or Category:Fictional Portuguese
 * Category:Fictional Scottish people → Category:Scottish fictional characters or Category:Fictional Scotts
 * Category:Fictional Welsh people → Category:Welsh fictional characters
 * 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)
 * Support. Tacking on and also  as it would be left as an odd-one out and is an uncontroversial move.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support all including the two others that Zythe found. — coe l acan — 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose per JhealdOsomec 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC) NB There is only one T in Scots. Osomec 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * people who have had tommy john surgery


 * Delete, do not listify - categorizing or listing people by most if not all medical procedures is overcategorization. Otto4711 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete per above. Doczilla 07:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't listify as per Otto4711. -- rimshots talk 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial, non defining. -- X damr  talk 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Choalbaton 15:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * scandinavian british columbians


 * Delete One step too far. Wilchett 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --  X damr  talk 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mayumashu 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in Serbia to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Serbia
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Abberley2 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Consistency with other categories is a good thing.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * iron man films


 * Upmerge per nom. Doczilla 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom. --  X damr  talk 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. CalJW 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * rules


 * Delete vague, useless category. Doczilla 22:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wilchett 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Too broad to be of any real use.  --  X damr  talk 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete Category:Sports rules might work, though is less than essential, but this is not that category. Olborne 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * gilberto silva


 * Delete A moderately prominent footballer should not have his own category. Choalbaton 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * X damr talk 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reason to exist at the current point. Punkmorten 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Qwghlm. Daemonic Kangaroo 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete, as non-defining. We don't really need a category for everything. -- Prove It (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - A list or a description in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be appropriate in this situation. Dr. Submillimeter 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the above and because it's nonsensically named ("I confess I am a terrorism target!") &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 17:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. David Kernow (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete as non defining. --  X damr  talk 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.) — coe l acan — 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Choalbaton 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 (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)
 * Delete Not a defining characteristic of the cities. Serves mainly to promote the festival. Choalbaton 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with nom that the template does a better job of conveying this info. Recury 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, template works better and seems better organised. Wpktsfs 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete as non-defining. -- X damr  talk 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * comic relief does the apprentice


 * Delete - Categorizing performer by performance is not feasible in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Arizona State University professors to Category:Arizona State Univeristy faculty
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Rename per convention. Doczilla 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per the very sensible convention. -- rimshots talk 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * images not licensed under gfdl


 * Delete per nom. Honbicot 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete this would become hopelessly huge. If it were to exist, it would just be a super-category to fairuse etc. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete per nom. VegaDark 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * actors who have portrayed jesus


 * Delete per discussion of November 2nd. -- Prove It (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2. Doczilla 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - This is recreated content. Categorizing actors by role is not feasible in the long term anyway.  Dr. Submillimeter 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no role cat's please. They clog up the bios and someone's cats end up with every 30-minutes of fame getting categorized. Carlossuarez46 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete:Per RevRagnarok. No reason for such a category. Bowsy (review me!) 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Real-time strategy computer games to Category:Real-time strategy video games
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * 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. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but I wasn't sure if it qualified for speedy deletion. --MrStalker 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Strategy computer games to Category:Strategy video games
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Rename as per nom. -- rimshots talk 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per nom, since there at least needs to be a base category before a platform-specific category. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 series to Category:Command & Conquer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Command & Conquer series to Category:Command & Conquer
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Note to closing admin. The rename for Category:Command & Conquer needs to be completed before this one is started.  Vegaswikian 07:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aren't these discussions supposed to be closed after 5 days? What's the hold-up? --MrStalker 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Command & Conquer to Category:Command & Conquer media Category:Command & Conquer images
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Comment. Why not a more standard name including the word image like Category:Command & Conquer images?  Vegaswikian 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Rename to Category:Command & Conquer images. Vegaswikian 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * global defense initiative


 * Delete. Vegaswikian 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. -- X damr  talk 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. Doczilla 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. — coe l acan — 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Merge per Cloachland. Osomec 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * [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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * spouses of polygamists


 * Delete per polygamists CfD. Doczilla 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - We already decided not to use this categorization system. (Also see Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 18.)  Dr. Submillimeter 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: Already decided, just missed this variant. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --  X damr  talk 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Osomec 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific to Category:Currencies of Asia
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * support per nom. This is a no brainer. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Honbicot 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --MChew 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * lists of wikipedians by number of edits


 * Delete per nom. -- rimshots talk 10:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. VegaDark 05:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:People from Dublin to Category:People from Dublin (city)
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Rename, to avoid confusion with Category:Natives of County Dublin (which is soon to become Category:People from County Dublin - see nomination of a few days ago) Mayumashu 03:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see the point; having the county one named differently already disambiguates. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The city article is at Dublin (WP:DAB). Category titles should follow article titles as closely as possible. — CharlotteWebb 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I think that the addition of "city" does add a useful clarity ... but for consistency, this change should be made only if a similar renaming is done for the other Irish cities which share a name with a county: Category:People from Cork and Category:People from Limerick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * X damr talk 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose since Category:People from Dublin is a subcat of Category:People from County Dublin, I doubt people will confuse the two. -- Prove It (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:CLAMP to Category:Clamp
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Support, per nom. Category:CLAMP images and Category:CLAMP cast members require the same treatment. - Cyrus XIII 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to speedy those, once we establish the precedent for the categories here. Neier 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Rename to Clamp (manga artists), that sounds OK. (forgot to sign before, oopsie). Recury 13:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose: "Clamp" makes me think of clamps. CLAMP makes me think of manga and anime. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.