Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 18

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Legendary birds for consistency with parent cat. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with rename, and agree that keeping things consistent is best, although technically it should probably be :Category:Fabulous birds. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename, use redirect to new cat if possible. Pavel Vozenilek 18:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for the same reason proposed by Radiant. Firestorm 16:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:01 (UTC)

Redundant with :Category:Fictional vampires (and ~Werewolves). Radiantmeta:mergist 22:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree. Check the parent categories. Fictional X is for fictional characters who are X, X in fiction is for works of fiction that prominently feature X. The 'X in fiction' categories ought to be renamed for the sake of clarity. -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd support a rename... how about :Category:Books about vampires? Radiantmeta:mergist 09:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Problem there is what about television programmes and comics and so on. How about :Category:Fictional works containing vampires Hiding 15:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested by Radiant!. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested by Radiant. Mandel 01:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Question Don't we have many categories like "Foo in Fiction" in the same meaning? — Sebastian (talk) 05:52, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep for above reason. — Sebastian (talk) 04:20, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Comment I still do not understand the reasoning for a "fictional" character/species to be referenced "in Fiction". If foo were already non-fictional, then there is no problem "Airplanes in fiction". But technically Vampires and Werewolves are already fictional, so if anything the category, if kept, should be named just "Vampires". <>Who?¿? 04:37, 27 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Oddly named; merge with its parent :Category:Fairies. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Renane to :Category:Fictional fairies. Do not merge (see reasoning below under :Category:Dwarves). -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Up-merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Redundant with :Category:Fairies, since most people don't know the difference. Also, empty. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Created as an attempt to turn the now-excised list of "sprites" at the sprite (creature) article into a category. -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:55 (UTC)

There's only two ghosts here, so they would be better off merged into the parent :Category:Fictional ghosts. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

This really needs to be expanded. Hopefully someone in the cable population can help. Pacific Coast Highway 03:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) (11:52PM--Brooklyn, NY Time)

• There is plenty of information on the ghosts in the main article (WP:FICT would prefer that over a series of categorized stubs). Radiantmeta:mergist 07:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Up-merge. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:55 (UTC)

There's only three ghosts here, so they would be better off merged into the parent :Category:Fictional ghosts. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Up-merge. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge I don't think there are too many "Hogwarts ghosts" anyway deserving of articles, so a merge would be in order. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 14:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fictional ghosts is not a Harry Potter subcategory. CalJW 16:57, 23 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)

About the mythological species, and therefore redundant with :Category:Fictional dwarves. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. In the case of mythological creatures, Category:[foo] is for examples of the [foo] in beliefs and myths, while Category:Fictional [foo] is for examples of the [foo] in literature and modern fiction. Compare :Category:Demons and :Category:Fictional demons. -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as Sean says. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have added a few genuine^TM mythological dwarves. Salleman 21:27, 23 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:50 (UTC)

About real-world dwarfs; rename to :Category:People with dwarfism (to avoid confusion with the above, and to match :Category:People with giantism). Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Overcategorization. Merge back into parent cat (:Category:People without hands) and delete. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. Pavel Vozenilek 18:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed. Urban legend alarm. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Up-merge. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:44 (UTC)

From the description, "This category is for people about whom there is (or was for a long period) a mystery as to their identity or immediate origins.". Can someone think of a more suitable name than 'mysterious people' because that sounds kind of confusing. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly :Category:Anonymous people? :Category:People whose name or existence is disupted? Rename, as "mysterious" is completely non-descriptive. -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• People of unknown identity? And btw, Rasputin's identity was known, B. Traven was just pen name, Subcomandante Marcos was for publicity, etc. It should be stressed that this cat is only for people like Kaspar Hauser, otherwise it just useless joke. Pavel Vozenilek 18:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unhelpful and POV. People who don't advertise themselves are deemed as mysterious. Category implies they mystify themselves. Mandel 01:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Other options could be rather long-winded - "People whose exact identity, past or existence is not stricly known but widely speculated". "Mysterious" is shorthand for that. However, many of those currently in the category, including Shakespeare, do not qualify (or in case of Deep Throat, not any more). Just remove the articles that do not belong. Also note that the category survived the previous CFD as unresolved - Skysmith 17:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• True, but that was a request for deletion, and this is a request for renaming. Radiantmeta:mergist 10:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This category will need occasional weeding, but none of the suggested new titles really fit. --ssd 13:17, 25 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Internet trolling since most of the articles categorized aren't about trollish individuals, but about instances of their actions. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Overly broad category. Only exists to subcat crime victims, whistleblowers and attorneys. Delete as useless. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Only serves as parent to Births By Year and Deaths By Year. Delete and put that duo in parent :Category:People. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 18:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)

Redundant with :Category:Disappeared people. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Since "missing" implies present tense, the other category should definitely be the one used. -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps Merge or put :Category:Missing people as a subcat of :Category:Disappeared people, and only have it include current missing people? Firestorm 22:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into :Category:Disappeared people. -- User:Docu

: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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Ridiculously long name. Can we shorten that please? Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Must admit this is hard. :Category:Famous cases of rare conditions? JFW | T@lk 22:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I think the words like "famous" or "noted" can be left out, as it can be assumed every entry will be notable enough for an article. Jonathunder 20:42, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• How about something like :Category:People with rare conditions since that would cover physical and psychological disorders as well as conditions in the category that are not diseases. Jonathunder 20:45, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete. These people should be accessed through the appropriate subcategories and articles (under :Category:Rare diseases, :Category:Accidents, :Category:Psychological disorders or such). A stigmatic, a pedophile and a person of exceptional age have nothing in common. — Sebastian (talk) 06:04, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Sebastian. Radiantmeta:mergist June 28, 2005 12:22 (UTC)
• Do not rename I think the tradeoff of awkwardness of the title for clear meaning is warranted. Courtland 22:30, 2005 Jun 24 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:35 (UTC)

That is a kind of disease, in case you were wondering :) what's the point of classifying authors and other notable people by the kind of disease they had? Do we want :Category:People with the measles too? Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I also agree with other suggestions by Radiant on similar categories above and bellow. Pavel Vozenilek 18:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Embarassing. :Category:People who have had their wisdom teeth removed heh. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Note: We should get the vote of someone who actually suffers from this disease. I can imagine that it can be very helpful to find some role models. — Sebastian (talk) 06:09, 2005 Jun 23 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:31 (UTC)

See above. What's the point of classifying notable people by the way they died? Unless it was suicide or murder or something spectacular, death from any disease is pretty much the same for the person's notability. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, rarely of any relevance. JFW | T@lk 22:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:27 (UTC)

Sea above. At the very least, rename to :Category:People lost at sea, but I think this is subtrivial and doesn't require categorization. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• rename. I feel this is much more notable than other causes of death on the cfd page, and deserves some mention, especially if it included modern people, such as those lost in the Bermuda Triangle or others. Firestorm 17:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename; not sure where to, though. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:People lost at sea. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 14:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. I started the category; I think it's somewhat notable, although it is underpopulated. :Category:People lost at sea sounds good. -- Tetraminoe 07:16, 23 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Overcategorization. Merge with parent, :Category:Lists of people who were executed which happens to be empty at the moment. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Sounds to me like abuse is a kind of disorder. As this is overly small, merge with parent :Category:Substance-related disorders. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• delete not necessary and does not seem to contribute much to Wikipedia. Firestorm 17:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into :Category:Substance-related disorders. Though "substance abuse" is an ok term and the category could be expanded over time, I agree that the content is too small right now to require it's own category separate from the "disorders" category. Courtland 22:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 00:59, 26 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Speaking of which, 'substance' is a euphemism for 'drugs', that may be misunderstood anywhere outside the USA. Since WP:NOT censored for protection, suggest rename to :Category:Drug-related disorders. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• rename to :Category:Drug-related disorders. Firestorm 17:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do not rename. This category's placement suggests that it includes both drug and non-drug addiction and abuse. For instance, nicotine is not considered a drug but a substance; alcohol is not considered a drug but a substance. With regard to "anywehere outside the USA", the term "substance abuse" is used on the [http://www.who.int/topics/en/#S WHO list of health topics], which I think can qualify as not entirely a US invention. It is fair to say that "substance" might be misconstrued when creating inter-wiki links to other languages, and care needs to be taken there. Courtland 22:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC) <= by the way I should have used the phrase "not uniformly considered"; my mistake (User:Ceyockey)
• Both alcohol and nicotine are drugs, as explained on Drug, Alcohol and wikt:Drug. Radiantmeta:mergist 10:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• The phrase used, invariably as far as I can tell, is "Drug and alcohol abuse", not just "drug abuse" without explicitely stating alcohol; this argues for different treatment of "alcohol" from the rest of "drugs". From that WHO list, the link off of "substance abuse" provides a note indicating separate treatment of alcohol from other substances (as "alcohol-related disorders"). In Australia there are separate "National Drugs Campaign" and "National Alcohol Campaign" (see Links:Commonwealth Government @ http://www.adca.org.au/conflinks/helplines.htm). I could go on and on and on. Alcohol is treated separately from other drugs and shoud not be included under :Category:Drug-related disorders but under :Category:Substance-related disorders.

:: As far as nicotine is concerned, one of the chief problems in aggressively blocking access to cigarettes and ceasing the epidemic of smoking-related disorders is that nicotine is not uniformly considered to be a drug, otherwise it could be regulated under the laws governing use of things like heroine, cocaine, and methamphetamines.

:: Technically, ethanol and nicotine are drugs, but for the intents and purposes of addressing usability of Wikipedia for the general public, they should not be lumped in with things that are uniformly agreed upon as drugs, such as cocaine, etc. Therefore, if you insist on lumping things together based on some sense of "it's not right unless it is exactly right", we're outside the realm of writing an encylopedia for general use, in my opinion. Oh, regardless of which way the decision goes, without references none of this can be taken seriously anyway ... which leads to the following post-script:

::P.S. I do not take as valid reference to Wikipedia articles that do not contain references supporting their assertions, as Drug, Alcohol and Wiktionary:Drug do not. That's too self-referential to be useful.

::Courtland 13:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

::*Sorry to go on, but one more thing: this is a sticky naming problem too because there are political overtones (at least for the USA). It seems that those persons who are for aggressive control of tobacco and/or alcohol tend to describe them as drugs, while those advocating letting persons choose their own fate for good or ill tend to not describe them as drugs. That's my impression at least. Courtland 14:15, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

:::I don't think that's correct. Substance, in this context is defined as any drug, chemical, or biologic entity and any material capable of being self-administered or abused because of its physiologic or psychologic effects(Mosby's, p.1648). --Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Do not rename. In this instance, "substance" is neither a euphemism for "drugs" nor an American standard. Substance, in this context is defined as any drug, chemical, or biologic entity, and any material capable of being self-administered or abused because of its physiologic or psychologic effects. The term "substance related disorder " is a psychiatric diagnosis used all over the world, including [http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2004001100020&tlng=es&lng=en&nrm=iso Brazil], [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11999904 France], [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12790305 India], and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12790305 Korea]. --Viriditas | Talk 02:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, but neither the Wikipedia entry on Substance nor any dictionary I could find call 'substance' in this context anything else than a euphemism, or at best a synonym. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and I see no reason to use a euphemistic cat name. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• The source that User:Viriditas cited for the definition of "substance" above is likely [http://www.us.elsevierhealth.com/product.jsp?isbn=0323035620 this], which is a respected medical dictionary, albeit one that is not on-line. It's not being available on-line does not invalidate it as a source. I really don't think that the multiple usages that User:Viriditas and I have cited are all instances of euphemistic use. Is that what you would contend? Courtland 17:10, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Not all of it is euphemistic, and I accept the fact that it's in use as a medical term. However, as a non-American, it sounds like PC to me. Radiantmeta:mergist June 28, 2005 12:24 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Since the border between 'addiction' and 'physical addiction' is disputed and ambiguous, merge this into the parent :Category:Addiction. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into :Category:Addiction. Firestorm 22:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into :Category:Addiction. The absence of a clear line between the two categories is demonstrated by the observation that Alcoholics Anonymous is in :Category:Physical addiction but the AA newsletter AA Grapevine is in :Category:Addiction. Courtland 22:38, 2005 Jun 24 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:14 (UTC)

I'm sure we don't need to subcategorize :Category:Suicide by the exact method used by those people. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:12 (UTC)

Since this cat is about people rather than horses, rename to :Category:People who suffered a horse accident. Then again, it might also qualify as terminally trivial, in which case deletion would be in order. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial and unnecessary categorization. A list at best (if at all). RedWolf 18:36, Jun 21, 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)

Do we really need to subcat suicide bombers by nationality? Especially as there is only one such subcat? Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. JFW | T@lk 22:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are suicide bombers in several countries, and Palestinians just happen to be the most notorious. They do form a clear cut group that has more in common with each other than with other suicide bombers or murderers. — Sebastian (talk) 06:23, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete. POV category with threadbare information.illWill 18:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Viriditas | Talk 02:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into :Category:Suicide bombing - surely this is what the delete votes mean, and what the nominator had in mind? -Splash 22:57, Jun 26, 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Given its very small size, suggest merging with its parent :Category:Suicide bombing. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. --AI 00:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to something like :Category:Suicide murderers, now that someone added :Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. — Sebastian (talk) 06:24, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested.illWill 18:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. --Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 26 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)

Every historical person is dead, obviously. This category actualy serves as a parent for a number of causes of death. That is also what :Category:Death is used for. Suggest merging to the latter, since it has a less dubious name. Radiantmeta:mergist 22:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• delete. or turn into a proper Category, though in that case, it would be rather long... Firestorm 17:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Radiant%21. BTW, the category of dead people already exists: :Category:Deaths by year. Actually, the opposite category is missing: "people who are not yet dead" ;-) — Sebastian (talk) 06:28, 2005 Jun 23 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Subset of (and partially redundant with) :Category:Arithmetic, this category is intended to list those topics that are taught at primary or secondary school. That sounds like a needlessly arbitrary division to me. Radiantmeta:mergist 14:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It seems useful enough, and defined well enough, and populated well enough, that I don't see a reason to delete it. SchmuckyTheCat 14:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Some other articles in arithmetic, including modulo arithmetic, Ackerman's function, Peano's Axioms, etc, are decidedly distinct from elementary arithmetic. This is a useful category. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The goal of the category was to keep the kind of arithmetic taught to graduate students somewhat distinct from the articles aimed at grade-school or high-school kids. Besides, this is a key subcategory of :Category:Elementary mathematics, which, together with :Category:Elementary algebra and :Category:Elementary geometry consists of 150 articles total, and contains a reasonably comprehensive overview of the fields of elementary mathematics. linas 15:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep. seems to be a good category and does not need deletion. Firestorm 17:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Contains only one algorithm. Suggested merge with parent cat and delete. Radiantmeta:mergist 14:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A fairly large field in numerical computation. We only have one multiplication algorithm article but we will have more and they belong together. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. This cat can be easily recreated if/when we find that a large number of articles on multiplication algorithms have accumulated in :Category:Computer arithmetic. I'd prefer to keep category growth organic, in that if one were to split :Category:Computer arithmetic into two, one would first answer "what subcategories would contain a large number of articles"? Any subcategory with 1-2 articles is "miscellaneous" and should be merged with parent. (I've recategorized >500 math/physics articles last month, I've been casually trying to keep things in order since.) linas 15:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation when there's more than one of them. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's been a month, and there's only one. Recreate when the articles exist. --ssd 13:27, 25 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

This category overlaps :Category:Ancient history. It contained 1 entry (Korybantes). --Brunnock 12:18, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

This category contained 2 articles (Age of sail and Transport by sailing ship) and 1 subcategory (:Category:Napoleonic wars). --Brunnock 11:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 15:50 (UTC)

This category contained 1 article- Palaeography. I recategorized Palaeography as :Category:Historiography. --Brunnock 09:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Palaeography is the study of old scripts. There are plenty of old scripts to study. It's a pity that Wikipedia doesn't have much on the subject (maybe because adding pictures isn't easy), but it certainly is encyclopedic. :Category:Historiography is only remotely related. I recategorized the category and some articles. — Sebastian (talk) 07:22, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep. There were always plenty of articles to add to this, but no one ever got around to it. Adam Bishop 15:32, 23 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

This one was deprecated a couple of months back (repaced by :Category:Wellington Region) but for some reason the people who changed to the new title didn't think of getting rid of the old, empty category. Grutness...wha? 08:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Delete - couldn't it be speedied? ··gracefool |☺ 09:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)

I understand the point of category redirects, but why on earth are they themselves categorized? Radiantmeta:mergist 01:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

:Only reason I can think of is so we can easily keep track of them in case we come up with a better technological solution. Not sure how good of a reason that is. Postdlf 02:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Special:Whatlinkshere for {{tl|categoryredirect}} would also do that. Radiantmeta:mergist 09:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Yah, delete. ··gracefool |☺ 09:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I think there might be a technical reason to keep this category. Enforcing that no articles are placed in redirected categories is a manual process (hopefully the result of an automated scan), but since whatlinkshere is truncated at 500 references if there are ever more than 500 redirected categories there may be a problem. I don't know if the 500 whatlinkshere limit is a display limit or if the database truncates at that many references. Categories don't have this issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• You can now apparently append "limit=999" to the URL to escape the normal 500 limit. RedWolf 19:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We need this category so that Pearle can automatically check these categories for articles that need to be moved to the redirect targets. (I'm still working on the code to implement this functionality.) -- Beland 22:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even without the bot, the category can be used to check by hand. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UT
• Keep --ssd 13:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Viriditas | Talk 02:18, 26 Jun 2005 (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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Frivolous or vanity category. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- nonsense. - Longhair | Talk 01:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Thanks for adding the deletion template, which I forgot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, should be speedy. Pavel Vozenilek 18:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Troll alarm. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. senseless vanity page. Firestorm 17:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as a call for vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 19:52, 24 Jun 2005 (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 page.