Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 8



Category:Museums in the Arab League

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * museums in the arab league


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure why we would want to use a multinational political organization as the basis for categorizing museums., anyone? List of museums in the Arab League already exists, created recently by the same user that created the category, who is (surprise) User:Arab League. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There is no apparent connection between museums and the Arab League that would justify this category intersection. A quick sample of articles in this category suggests that most (if not at all) are already in an appropriate Museums in (Country) category. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Leon County historic buildings

 * 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: yay! I mean rename. Kbdank71 14:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Leon County historic buildings to Category:Historic buildings of Leon County, Florida
 * Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found doing March cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename. Yay! One I didn't screw up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pittsburgh inclines

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Railway inclines in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Kbdank71 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Pittsburgh inclines to Category:Railway lines in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found doing March cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this category was briefly discussed on the project's talk page and no objections were raised there. If someone thinks this is the correct action, I'd suggest posting something on the project talk page about this upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename. Yup, it's clear that an entire nomination of mine went missing, certainly my fault.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename but to Category:Railway inclines in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The subject matter is inclines not railroads generally.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per Peterkingiron. I think this is a valid and unique type of railway line. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Neighborhoods in Pittsburgh

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Pittsburgh to Category:Neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found this apparently incompletion nomination doing March cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename. This is another one of mine that didn't make it to the CfD page.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pittsburgh coaches

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pittsburgh coaches to Category:Coaches from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing cleanup as an incomplete nomination to delete. The introduction clearly states that this covers the metro area of 7 counties so a rename seems to be the best choice here.  I see no reason to delete.  The proposed name better matches the other subcategories under the sports parent.Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could swear I nominated this one too. I think an entire nomination of mine disappeared in all my cutting and pasting. Well, regardless, this is the only category that attempts to group coaches by city or municipal area, which seems a trivial intersection, so I favor deleting it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, upmerge subcategories to Category:Sportspeople from Pennsylvania. I've looked at the one (1) article, it's only a stub. The subcategories are the only sticking point, and a broader state view will better match the various "players" subcategories. (This has been sitting around unresolved for over a month, so I'm weighing in to give a 2:1 ratio.)


 * 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:Parks in Pittsburgh

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename as nominated; allow pruning and creation of Category:Parks in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. May want to re-evaluate need for both after pruning and re-organizing occurs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created Category:Parks in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Both seem fine now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Parks in Pittsburgh to Category:Parks in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing cleanup as an incomplete renomination to Category:Parks in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I'm renominating with a different name since the introduction clearly says it is for the metro area and in fact lists the 7 counties included.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Parks in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and prune. The PIttsburgh categories are among the only city categories where they've been overstuffed with lots of outliers. I originally meant to include this in the nomination from a month back, but obviously didn't succeed at that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem if the rename happens and then the subcategory of Category:Parks in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is created? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gamble and Huff songs

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Gamble and Huff songs to Category:Songs written by Gamble and Huff
 * Nominator's rationale: The songs listed in this category were written, not recorded, by Gamble and Huff. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom (nb. category not tagged) . Occuli (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ITunes radio

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * itunes radio


 * Nominator's rationale: I don't see any point in this category. I may be wrong on this, but afaik there is no such thing as "iTunes radio". Of course, iTunes can pick up audio streams, like many media players can, but that doesn't make the stations it picks up "iTunes radio stations", right? Otherwise, we might as well start categories called "Winamp radio", "Windows Media Player radio", etc. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * well, there are a number of articles in this category. Do you think all of them wrong? Do you think the discussion wrong at the section on Internet radio in the itunes article? DGG (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Straight answer: Yes. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Protest Records

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * protest records


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category for an online record label that, since it is defunct, is unlikely to expand in any significant fashion. The two articles are interlinked and the lead article can certainly be expanded should the need arise. Otto4711 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. adequate linkage between the (probably only) two articles on the subject. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vietnamese ornithologists

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * vietnamese ornithologists


 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation. One member, unlikely to ever be any more. This, that and the other &#x5B;talk&#x5D; 10:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as one of 42 sub-cats in Category:Ornithologists by nationality. Bird species & populations vary greatly from one country to another, so even if we had no other comparable category schemes, this one would still be eminently sensible. Cgingold (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of Category:Ornithologists by nationality. (Not sure why Vietnam is unlikely to produce further ornithologists.) Occuli (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a nationality category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of an overall category structure. I'm baffled as to how the nominator is certain that there are "unlikely to ever be any more" in Vietnam. Did the country ban the profession? Alansohn (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not saying that Vietnam won't produce any more ornithologists, I just meant it is unlikely that there will be any more notable ones in the foreseeable future. This, that and the other &#x5B;talk&#x5D; 07:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Category:English popes, etc. — CharlotteWebb 17:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per it's small and it's not useful for navigation and i don't buy the overall scheme thing. I really need to just copy and paste my argument (redacted).  It can always be recreated if more articles are found/written.  That said, I'll go ahead and close this discussion now, as I'm going to be the only one besides the nominator with this opinion.  Just wanted to get it on record.  --Kbdank71 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American defenders of slavery

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:American pro-slavery activists--Aervanath (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * american defenders of slavery


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by isolated political opinion. Also not defining for those in antebellum years, since most elected politicians from the South were defenders of slavery. All the Republican opponents were elected from free states, while the South was solidly Democratic pro-slavery. Hence the Civil War. Many similar categories by isolated political opinion have been deleted, including:
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_27
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_30
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_1
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_25
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_22
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_21
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_4 — Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete politicians by one viewpoint and not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A very major viewpoint indeed for 75 years of US politics. Check the articles in the category. Not all of them are from the South. FWIW, the modern Republican and Democratic  parties did not exist for most of the relevant period. DGG (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep I created this category from the existing Category:Defenders of slavery so it could be properly fitted into United States categories. No valid reason to delete either of them. This is not an 'isolated opinion'--it is what these people pursued in their lives.  No different than having a category for slavery abolitionists.  Using the logic of deletion, we will soon have a WP with nothing for individuals but birth date and place, death date, and where the person lived.  How unuseful is that.  Hmains (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, birth place is not defining .... But seriously, seeing as how categories are created every day at a rate that is at least 20–30 times as fast as categories are deleted (sometimes much higher than that), I don't think this sky-is-falling scenario is in danger of becoming reality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - overcategorization on the basis of opinion. If you want to create Category:Anti-abolitionists then have at it. Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposed new category would be deleted under your own narrow criteria. Alansohn (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename, per Otto or maybe as Category:American pro-slavery activists. Apart from a couple of questionable cases like Jonathan Leavitt (minister) and John Rutledge, all of my fair-sized sample were notable for pro-slavery writings or actions. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename per Johnbod to Category:American pro-slavery activists, in order to shift the focus from mere holding of an opinion to activism on behalf of the pro-slavery cause. This category is indeed the counterpart -- make that the evil twin -- to . Cgingold (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per one of the recent suggestions. I do not mind which.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sky is fa- I mean rename to Category:American pro-slavery activists per Johnbod and Cgingold. --Kbdank71 14:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Their viewpoint is a defining characteristic of the individuals included. The view of a narrowminded group that we can only group people by participation in pre-defined political organizations disrupts the ability to navigate through clearly similar articles. Calling this an "isolated political opinion" betrays a basic lack of understanding of the political battles that waged through the United States before the Civil War, with efforts such as the Compromise of 1850 to settle them. Alansohn (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep your epithets and assumptions of others' level of knowledge to yourself, Alansohn. They are becoming exceedingly tiresome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Dukes of the First French Empire

 * 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: relist to Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_16--Aervanath (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Dukes of Abrantès
 * Category:Dukes of Albufera da Valencia
 * Category:Dukes of Auerstaedt
 * Category:Dukes of Augereau
 * Category:Dukes of Belluno
 * Category:Grand Dukes of Berg and Cleves
 * Category:Dukes of Conegliano
 * Category:Dukes of Dalmatia
 * Category:Dukes of Dantzig
 * Category:Dukes of Elchingen
 * Category:Dukes of Montebello
 * Category:Dukes of Morny
 * Category:Dukes of Raguse
 * Category:Dukes of Reggio
 * Category:Dukes of Rivoli
 * Category:Dukes of Taranto
 * Category:Dukes of Valmy


 * Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to parent Category:Dukes of the First French Empire. These categories were created 18 months ago and they only contain 1-4 articles (most of them 1). I think this is covered by WP:OC. Parent category contains 14 articles. I think it's rational to have a category with 40-50 articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Creator notifed. Check User talk:Stijn Calle for more cases of overcategorisation. --Magioladitis (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now The thing is that most of these are Napoleonic generals whose article names give no clue to these titles. So just chucking them all in to the main category will make it very difficult to find a particular title. If there was a good list this would not matter, but in the absence of this, I'd keep. Voting "listify" is no use, as this rarely ever happens. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – per Johnbod. Also while the average editor can put François Christophe de Kellermann into Category:Dukes of Valmy from reading the first line, it needs specialist expertise to know that this is part of Category:Dukes of the First French Empire. Occuli (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately upmerge, but not yet but fist we need redirects, which should be to the first holder of the title (sometimes the only one), with a capnote added pointing to a disambiguation page. Note there is an article on each British peerage, gviing a brief listory of the title, its notable holders, and other notable members of the family, followed by a disambiguation style list of the holders.  I would suggest a similar solution in this case.  We do not need a category for each title, but we do need a mechanism for getting at the title holder.  I note that Duke of Ragusa is alreadty such a redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diseases that cause abortion

 * 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 all. Kbdank71 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * diseases that cause abortion


 * Nominator's rationale: This is better covered by an article, as most of these diseases do not invariably cause abortion and the categorisation is therefore potentially misleading. JFW | T@lk  06:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Co-nomination. Category:Diseases that only cause abortion in animals (the subcategory).
 * Delete per nom and as co-nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename/move. Have you considered renaming it?  How about "Diseases that may cause abortion" and "Diseases that may cause abortion in animals". Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this isn't an established way of categorizing diseases on wikipedia. Take for example the first one of the list, chlamydia. Abortion isn't even mentioned in the lead. What is mentioned? Urethritis, epididymitis, and dysuria. Do we have Category:Diseases that cause urethritis? If we aren't even categorizing diseases by their major symptoms or related conditions, it seems quite odd to categorize them by their minor symptoms or related conditions. Do we have Category:Diseases that cause death (or Category:Terminal diseases?) let alone Category:Diseases that cause nausea or Category:Diseases that cause headache? I'll repeat, this simply isn't an established way of categorizing diseases on wikipedia. This material would probably work better as a list or stand alone article. This isn't what categorization is for. -Andrew c [talk] 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Chlamydia article says: "Chlamydia can affect infants by causing spontaneous abortion." I have no problem using a list instead of a category for all this stuff (if you promise to support the list!).  I'm not sure I see the big difference between doing it as a list versus doing it as a category.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Categories, lists, and navigation templates and since the main article is titled miscarriage, it may be better to use that term instead of "abortion". That use of abortion, while technically accurate, seems like jargon and could cause confusion in the lay reader.-Andrew c [talk] 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay with "List of diseases that may cause miscarriage in humans” and "List of diseases that may cause miscarriage in animals"?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, that list seems like a spin off of Miscarriage. There are 8 items in the category. I'm not sure why we shouldn't just add the list (maybe even in prose from) to Miscarriage. Do we really need to spin off content? Due we go into so much depth at Miscarriage, that we need a stand alone article to cover a list of 8 diseases? We already mention 2. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal to add 6 more.-Andrew c [talk] 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's way more than eight. Add fourteen here.  The list will be expanded too.  Whatever you want, Andrew c, I will do.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * List of diseases that may cause miscarriage.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete disease by symptom is a bad precedent. Category:Diseases that cause fevers, Category:Diseases that cause death, Category:Diseases that cause flatulence, Category:Diseases that cause nausea ad nauseum Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Diseases that may cause miscarriage per parent article List of diseases that may cause miscarriage. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Parent article? You are in error. Ferrylodge started that article two hours after the cat he started was listed for discussion here. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and most certainly do not rename to miscarriage, that is another poorly named medical piece, in this case an article. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - disease by symptom is untenable. Most if not all diseases have multiple symptoms and categorizing them will lead to a knot of unhelpful categories on disease articles. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a category or list, whether using the word "abortion" or "miscarriage", it's misleading by gross oversimplification, can be unnecessarily worrisome to those who aren't in any danger, and might be potentially harmful to those who might actually be in danger, particularly for casual readers that happen upon it and might choose to rely upon it. In other words, it's junk-- worse than useless. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, just FYI, there was an objection that the abortion article mentioned only two diseases that can cause miscarriage in animals. Since many diseases can do that, I did not think it appropriate to list them all in that article.  A list seemed like a better way to do it, if done properly, but maybe you're right that we should just let it all go down the memory hole.  Anyway, I guess the present discussion is mainly about the category, not the list.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said. If the relevant articles are properly written, there's no need for a potentially very misleading list of this kind upon which cursory readers who encounter it might mistakenly rely to their personal detriment. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks again for your comments, Kenosis. I'm sure we'll get this worked out to everyone's satisfaction.  Maybe this evening, I'll try to put the list (List of diseases that may cause miscarriage) in narrative form, as a section of the miscarriage article (no time right this minute, though).  On the other hand, maybe the list will come up for deletion, and other editors will see a way to make the list less potentially misleading.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ferrylodge, this is precisely why you are on Arbcom probation regarding Abortion articles. I mention that one section needs work, and you do the least encyclopedic and most disruptive unhelpful thing. Please note the concern was not that we didn't have a laundry list of all possible diseases, but that we only list two diseases and don't mention parasites or pharmacological causes. This is unbalanced and inaccurate. You are making it MORE unbiased and inaccurate, and cluttering the Cat list with a Cat which is completely inappropriate. You either didn't bother to check precedent on medical Cats, or you don't understand them; you either didn't bother to read my concern, or else you willfully misunderstood it; you create and/or exacerbate problems and issues. You really need to consider removing yourself from the Abortion family of articles before the community tires of the time spent discussing and cleaning up your ill conceived notions of "improvement" or at the very least spend more time reading and trying to understand. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * KC, would you please try not to make a point of following me around and telling everyone about an event at ArbCom from 2007? That would be much appreciated.  As far as the Cat, I have no problem removing the Cat, but am not so sure about the List.  As I said to Andrew c above, "Whatever you want, Andrew c, I will do."  Was that statement of mine an outrageous ArbCom violation?  I think not.  Please try to back off a bit, okay?  An admin suggested earlier this week that you stop hounding me.  Another admin said earlier this week that you "inappropriately" banned me from an article this month. Considering our past interactions, perhaps you should consider removing yourself from your present role as my personal supervisor.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I can't remember if I've ever created a category at Wikipedia before. In any event, I do so very rarely.  If I erred here, it certainly was not intentional.  I'm a pretty decent editor, but I don't always do everything right the first time.  Maybe I didn't do such a horrible thing here, if Alansohn supports it.  And by the way, there's no way that any POV is associated with what I did here, AFAIK.  I think we're all pretty much opposed to diseases.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I've been editing the Abortion family of articles longer than you, so I could far more plausibly accuse you of following me around! However, I am quite aware it is just that in some areas, our article interests overlap. Surely you have noticed that the same group of editors commonly edit the same group of articles? If not, allow me to assure you that this is a common occurance, and there is no need or reason to ABF and accuse other editors who share your intersts of stalking you. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not accused you here of stalking. What I have asked you to ease up on is the following combination: "following me around and telling everyone about an event at ArbCom from 2007."  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, saying I'm "following you around" is accusing me of stalking. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." If it's not accompanied by that stuff, it doesn't seem like a big problem.  Anyway, discussing this here does not seem very appropriate for this talk page, so let's not.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Otto4711. Odd nature (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per JFW. Categories are essentially unannotated lists, and the diseases involved would need considerable annotation. In animals it's even more so: what causes spontaneous abortion in pigs is probably not the same agent that would cause it in goats, rabbits, or dogs... let alone aardvarks :-). -- SB_Johnny  | talk  18:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would someone please delete the categories? I made them, and hereby again approve deleting them. As I said above, "I have no problem removing the Cat."  Also, FYI, the list has also been deleted per the talk page discussion here, where User:Tznkai stated that it is useful information, and she is trying "to think of a middle ground."  Thanks.  Another editor mentioned that the information is useful, and it would be a "Shame to see it disappear into the Wiki ether without the info being included in Miscarriage."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bruce Dickinson members

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting Category:Bruce Dickinson members
 * Nominator's rationale: Unlike the category below, this isn't really a band, it's a series of musicians on Dickinson's solo projects.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - too vague for categorisation purposes. Occuli (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm pretty sure that Bruce Dickinson has just one member (sorry for the lame pun). As for the members of the Bruce Dickinson band, which this obviously refers to, there is no such band, just a loosely tied group of musicians. "Musicians who have worked with Bruce Dickinson" is probably too vague for a category, as Occuli has pointed out correctly. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Patti Smith band members
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename, can someone add a hatnote per the discussion, k thanks. Kbdank71 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Patti Smith band members to Category:Patti Smith Group members
 * Nominator's rationale: These are slightly different things. Category:Musicians by band allows for members of specific bands, but not just people associated with the music of a singer. The Patti Smith Group (active 1974-1979) contains all the members of this category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. (Wot, no mention of city/state?) Occuli (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, it should be Category:Patti Smith Group, Illinois members. (Kidding.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - For a future articles about Tony Snanahan and Oliver Ray, who was members of her band after dissolution of the Patti Smith Group. --The Watusi (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and correct name of the band. Otto4711 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * but people in this category isn't in Patti Smith Group anymore. Since 1988 CD's and concert posters tittled "Patti Smith", not "Group" --The Watusi (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Subcategories of Category:Musicians by band include present and former members of their groups (see the header, which says "Musicians by their bands, whether previous or current members").--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * and why does it need for? this act is have a number of titles: Patti Smith, Patti Smith Group, Patti Smith and Her Band. Category for this musicians, most of whom remains in band through this renames, must be called neutral and not by one of this title. (sorry for my englsh) --The Watusi (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Musicians by band doesn't categorize all musicians who played together. It categorizes musicians in named bands, and of these, only one, the Patti Smith Group, is an actual band. No albums were released under the name Patti Smith and Her Band, as far as I could tell.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no Patti Smith Group as a separate band. There is a Patti Smith with couple of long-time musicians and couple of those who come and go. Look, first she released two records labeled as "Patti Smith". Then (without changes in line-ip) they started write "Patti Smith Group". Now they very frequently type "Patti Smith and Her Band" at the concert announcements. And there IS an album released under the name Patti Smith and Her Band. So when you suggest to rename it to "Patti Smith Group" is like you make this category only for those musicians who was with Patti since 1976 to 1979 - it's not fair. And when I'll create article on her bass-guitarist who played with her since 1996 - in which category should I put him? --The Watusi (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There two bass-players: Ivan Kral (1975-1979) and Tony Shanahan (1996-present). If we'll rename it to "Group" then Kral will be in this category and Shanahan - will not, cause he don't belong to the Patti Smith Group, despite that he no less important as a musician to Patti. There too much of bureaucratism in it. Leave it as it is or remove at all --The Watusi (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - there does seem to have been a well-defined and stable 'Patti Smith band' over 30 years or so. Why not just add a note in the intro to include members of the 2 or 3 incarnations of 'the Patti Smith Group'? Occuli (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree to write such note and to not rename it. --The Watusi (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator, you just pay attention to this word "Group". But they are no less of the same group/band when they whote just "Patti Smith" on discs! --The Watusi (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to Shanahan and others being put into the category with a note reading "Members of the Patti Smith Group and other incarnations of Patti Smith's band", as long as the category name changes to "Patti Smith Group members".--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Patti Smith Group covers five years of their existence. How you don't understand... Let's take Lenny Kaye who in this category for example: He is in her band since 1971 (before the name "patti smith group" taken) to present time (30 years after they don't use "patti smith group" label at all). Renaming category is like stating that he was active only five years and there was no Patti's band before or after. You said you agree with note than it contains all members outside of Patti Smith Group, but this note is not needed if the name of category would be some extensive statement as it now - "Patti Smith band members" is suitable perfectly. There is no need to rename it and to limit. Strongly oppose. --The Watusi (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You've made your point, repeating it many times. Let's hear from other people.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vanity record labels
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep and recommend that the article is renamed to match. Kbdank71 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Vanity record labels to Category:Vanity labels
 * Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As Is - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. A minute's research would have uncovered this earlier CFD where this category was renamed from Category:Vanity labels to its current name. We strive for maximum clarity in category names. Cgingold (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes...some sense. But I really don't see how "vanity labels" is that ambiguous when the parent article is right there. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even so, it's still better to have the extra clarity whenever possible. And don't forget about HotCat, where there's no clue at all as to the parent cats or anything else. Cgingold (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Head scratch the parent article is Vanity label, but we changed from that name in a CfD just 18 months ago. Otherwise, I'd support matching the title of the parent article as in all cases. If it keeps the folks here at CfD spinning in circles discussing this and preventing the deletion of worthwhile categories, we should keep on nominating this and other categories for renaming. Alansohn (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – perhaps someone could boldly rename the article to Vanity record label, which seems a better name. Occuli (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Support Occuli's suggestion. Although I am at a loss to see what similarities there is between Vanity label and Vanity publisher where I assume the phrase was coined from. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. No reason to make the change. The plural form should be used, as for the encompassing category: Record labels.  DGG (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename article to match. There may be other varieties of vanity labels than for records, but I cannot think what.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per this discussion and the previous action. At the close of this discussion, rename the main article to match, if someone does not change it sooner. As to other uses raised by Peterkingiron, there is Florida company called Vanity Label Inc., then there is the generic vanity label like when you get wine bottles with your name on them. Another use of this term is described here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.