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. — ξxplicit 03:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Randomly added to a number of medical articles. There is barely a medical condition that cannot become a health issue in pregnancy, and I therefore regard the category as very unhelpful. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thank you for notifying me about this CFD, Jfdwolff -- much appreciated. However, when you describe it in broad-brush terms as "Randomly added" to articles, that is a gross mis-characterization. Even a cursory perusal of the contents confirms that it is being used as intended, for articles that deal with health issues that arise during and are of particular concern during pregnancy. I created the category as a natural intersection of Category:Pregnancy and Category:Maternal health, in order to improve navigation by pulling together articles which were randomly strewn among the diverse contents of those parent categories. Like any other category, it's always possible that articles may have been added to it inappropriately. If you have found one or more articles that don't really belong there, please identify which ones. In all likelihood, all that is needed here is a bit of judicious cleanup, such as any category might require from time to time. Cgingold (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the category is potentially limitless. You need to restrict it to articles that are specific to pregnancy, such as Gestational hypertension and so on. This is why I felt that the selection of articles currently included in the category is "random". JFW | T@lk 06:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's "potentially limitless", but in actual practice it looks to me like it's being used properly. And you've again used the word "random", but you still haven't identified which articles meet that description. Please be specific. Cgingold (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, Good Ol'factory. If the presence of a small number of inaptly categorized articles was grounds for deletion we would have to delete half the Categories on Wikipedia. Seriously. To repeat what I said above, "all that is needed here is a bit of judicious cleanup, such as any category might require from time to time." Cgingold (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've examined the 4 articles that you identified, G/O -- which is what I asked Jfdwolff for repeatedly -- and I would have no problem with removing them from the category as none of them include substantial info dealing with the subject of this category. Cgingold (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my comment is better read as a vote to "clean up" drastically. Sometimes, users don't want it cleaned up—they think it's fine as it is, so I guess I was just saying delete if it was going to stay as-is. I should have known those in this discussion so far would be willing to clean up. The problem is, I would expect many more of the articles currently in the category to not belong there. Being a health issue in pregnancy is not defining for most of these. You said above you think it's being used properly, but I just selected 4 obvious examples of misfits. They are by no means the end of the problem. That's why I suggested that if this is kept it should be limited to articles that are explicitly about pregnancy health issues only. Why are cancer and cirrhosis included, for example? Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've just taken a more thorough look than time permitted when I made my initial "cursory perusal of the contents", which did confirm the presence of a great many articles that unquestionably belong in the category. But I see that there are a fair number of recently-added articles that do indeed need to be cleaned out -- more than I realized. What's reassuring is that they were all added on one day by a single editor (our colleague User:TyrS) -- and equally important, this CFD was posted that very day. In other words, the category was in top-notch condition up to that point -- and Jfdwolff could have simply cleaned out the errant articles, having spotted the problem. Cgingold (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. Well, if it lasted that long in good condition, then I've no problem keeping it and cleaning it out. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To answer Good Olfactory (above), a category doesn't have to be defining to be applicable and relevant. (And when you say it should exclude "the more general conditions" do you mean all pre-existing conditions? You mention only obesity and smoking. Are you proposing that the category should focus only on the possible effects of women's lifestyle choices on pregnancy? This would defeat the category's purpose as - as explained by Cgingold, above - an intersection of information on pregnancy and maternal health.)
To answer Jfdwolff's comments, I recently added several articles to this category based on research I've just been doing for this article (just moved into the public pages; it's by no means perfect, but is much needed; and on which, by the way, I hope to get some informed feedback and contributions). So no, they weren't added randomly - please refer to that article for the appropriate citations which have informed my rationale in adding these articles to this category.--TyrS (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus over the months and years has been that a category should generally be defining for a topic. This is generally a higher standard than "applicable and relevant". My comment was meant to say that it should only be applied to topics for which its relation to pregnancy is one of its defining features, regardless of whether or not this is a pre-existing condition or a lifestyle choice. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the case of this category may make it a bit different from many others. Aren't categories sometimes used in order to collate information? As far as I'm concerned, though (and I don't know how Cgingold feels about this) I suppose an alternative solution might be to include this article (would it then need to be called 'Health issues in pregnancy' rather than 'Risk factors...' though? Hmmm...) in the 'See also' sections of the relevant conditions.--TyrS (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said in my reply (above) to Good Ol’factory, the four [all of the] articles in question should be removed from the category because none of them have a significant amount of info dealing with pregnancy. I didn't know that they had all been added recently by a single (very well-intended) editor who simply didn't realize that categories aren't really supposed to be used in that manner. As for See also links, that might possibly make sense -- use your own judgement on a case by case basis. Cgingold (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:merge. — ξxplicit 03:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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, which was taken care of by creator of category. I've converted the former into a disambiguation category. — ξxplicit 22:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely ambiguous, I would've expected this category to be about worms. — ξxplicit 17:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worms, Germany would be fine for me too, if there was a bot to do tthe renaming....--Symposiarch (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the nomination succeeds, a bot will create the new category and move the contents shortly afterward. — ξxplicit 18:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with nominator. Current name is just too ambiguous. __meco (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per our naming conventions and e.g. CFD from 8 August 2006. Category "Serbian actors" is sufficient. Darwinek (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a pattern for such category names? I am afraid all related categories are in "actors" form. - Darwinek (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that should all of the film actor categories have "actors and actresses" in their name, instead of just actors? Lugnuts (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea. However I think, it would be such a large change, it would require a discussion at WikiProject Films and/or other WikiProjects. - Darwinek (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Serbian actors. Except at the Academy Awards, "actor" is a noun that comfortably encompasses men, women, and children. My dictionary actually defines the word as "a male or female who performs in a play or a film". Changing to "actors and actresses" would be a huge change to hundreds of categories for very little gain, and there isn't a need for it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we don't categorize women for just being women, I guess because it kind of implies that being a man is the default status. The FOOian women categories are usually reserved for subcategories only, like by occupation categories or "Executed FOOian women". Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — ξxplicit 03:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. While this is a useful category for WikiProject Biography, the category name should be descriptive, not prescriptive. This should actually be applied to the whole tree of categories under Category:Biography articles without infoboxes. Yworo (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - many in fact should not have infoboxes, per the editors and other projects concerned, especially for example artists. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:Listify and partially upmerge. Ruslik_Zero 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Listify and partially upmerge. Firstly, we should only categorize organizations designated as terrorists, not individuals. The parent categories in this hierarchy already reflect this, and this principle has also been established in previous CfDs. Secondly, the United States designation scheme is complicated and unwieldy and as a category structure it provides more detail than what is practical and useful. I propose that these categories is listified and that entries which are organizations be upmerged to Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government. __meco (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination in full—this is a very sensible suggestion. It makes sense to have just one "designated terrorist" category per government—the rest of the details can be sussed out in list articles. There has been unneeded proliferation of these for every government entity that designates organizations as terrorist, and there is a lot of overlap. Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As Good Ol’factory said, this is a very sensible suggestion but I support your nomination. Joaquin008(talk) 19:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge there appears to be no benefit to navigation by breaking this down by the U.S. government agency that has designated the organization, and merging will combine all such organizations as a group. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We need the fact that they are designated by government agencies as terrorist to avoid POV issues, but we do not need to break it down by agency: ideally one would expect all US government agencies to use the same list, but presumably they do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
