Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 19

< March 18	March 20 >

March 19

Category:Fictional characters by origin usually ending in H

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

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.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support all including the two others that Zythe found. — coel acan — 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have had Tommy John surgery

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. --rimshots^talk 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial, non defining. --Xdamr^talk 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scandinavian British Columbians

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]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mayumashu 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ski resorts in Serbia

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]

Rename per nom. Abberley2 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iron Man films

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"? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Doczilla 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. CalJW 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rules

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilberto Silva

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.

Xdamr^talk 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]

Category:Confessed terrorism targets of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

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 as non defining. --Xdamr^talk 14:38, 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.) — coel acan — 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Book Capital

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]

Delete as non-defining. --Xdamr^talk 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic Relief Does The Apprentice

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]

Category:Arizona State University professors

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]

Rename per convention. Doczilla 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the very sensible convention. --rimshots^talk 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images not licensed under GFDL

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]

Category:Actors who have portrayed Jesus

Prototypical actor by performance subcategory. The movie, etc that they were in is likely already in Category:Dramatic portrayals of Jesus. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion of November 2nd. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Actors_by_role_and_subcategories. Doczilla 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete:Per RevRagnarok. No reason for such a category. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Real-time strategy computer games

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]

Category:Strategy computer games

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]

Rename as per nom. --rimshots^talk 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Command & Conquer series

Propose renaming Category:Command & Conquer series to Category:Command & Conquer

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). NOTE: Category:Command & Conquer must be moved to Category:Command & Conquer media first. MrStalker 10:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Command & Conquer

Propose renaming Category:Command & Conquer to ~~Category:Command & Conquer media~~ Category:Command & Conquer images

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category only contains images, all Command & Conquer series C&C-related articles is located under Category:Command & Conquer series. MrStalker 10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not a more standard name including the word image like Category:Command & Conquer images? Vegaswikian 22:19, 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]

Rename to Category:Command & Conquer images. Vegaswikian 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Global Defence Initiative

Delete, images in this sub-category are already included in main category and fits better there. MrStalker 10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vegaswikian 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surgical abortion and Category:Medical abortion

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. — coel acan — 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spouses of polygamists

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]

Delete per polygamists CfD. Doczilla 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already decided not to use this categorization system. (Also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 18#Category:Bigamists.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Already decided, just missed this variant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific

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]

support per nom. This is a no brainer. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Honbicot 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Wikipedians by number of edits

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]

Delete per nom. --rimshots^talk 10:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Dublin to Category:People from Dublin (city)

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)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the point; having the county one named differently already disambiguates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The city article is at Dublin (WP:DAB#Primary topic). Category titles should follow article titles as closely as possible. — CharlotteWebb 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.

Xdamr^talk 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CLAMP

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]