Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 28

< March 27	March 29 >

March 28

Category:Wild Horses (American band) albums

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 both, but rename second to Category:Wild Horses (American rock band) members for consistency. Kbdank71 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wild Horses (American band) albums to Category:Wild Horses (American rock band) albums

I also propose renaming:

Category:Wild Horses (American band) members to Category:Wild Horses (American rock band members)

Nominator's rationale: I am prposing these name changes to reflect the fact there is more than one American band with the name Wild Horses: the rock band and an unrelated country band. While the country band has ~~yet to release an album~~ only one album and possibly marginal notability, I think that this should be renamed anyway, to avoid confusion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if I bundled this right or not. If I did something wrong, please let me know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as creator. I have no problems with this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2008 (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.

Category:Nuclear terrorism

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 12:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Category:Nuclear terrorism to Category:Terrorism by genre

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded (single-article) intermediary category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Seems reasonable to me; this shouldn't be a separate category and also the name of one article.csloat (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I simply had not time to populate this category. Now it includes 10+ articles and subcategories. Note that Radiological poisoning belongs to nuclear terrorism per International conventions and per this and other sources Radiological Terrorism: “Soft Killers” by Morten Bremer Mærli, Bellona Foundation Biophys (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks ok now. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks OK now Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Black Falcon, I agree this really does not need its own category.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Category:Nuclear terrorism is a subcategory of Category:Causes of death, Category:Radioactivity, Category:Radiobiology. However Category:Terrorism by genre does not belong to these categories. Hence the merging is not logical.Biophys (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have removed the category from two of the categories you have listed. The focus of the category is too specific to justify its presence in Category:Causes of death and placing it in both Category:Radioactivity and Category:Radiobiology is redundant. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But I hope you would not dispute that Category:Nuclear terrorism belongs to Category:Radioactivity and Category:Nuclear warfare (since terrorism is a form of unconventional warfare as someone recently argued)? My argument remains valid.Biophys (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I would not; it seems well-suited to those. Incidentally, I don't oppose keeping the category in its current state. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. Could you then withdraw this nomination? The "victims" category below is more questionable, and the consensus seems to keep "victims of radiological poisoning", although I am not sure.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've stricken my original "merge" recommendation, but I can't withdraw the nomination at this point, as two other editors have supported merging. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (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.

Category:Nuclear terrorism victims

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 into Category:Victims of radiological poisoning. Kbdank71 12:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is really no basis for classifying the killing of Litvinenko as an act of terrorism (if anything, it was a targeted assassination). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not something belongs to category "X" must be defined exclusively by sources per WP:Verifiability. According to medical professionals, "Litvinenko’s murder represents an ominous landmark: the beginning of an era of nuclear terrorism."^[1]^[2]

^ "Ushering in the era of nuclear terrorism", by Patterson, Andrew J. MD, PhD, Critical Care Medicine, v. 35, p.953-954, 2007.
^ "Beyond the Dirty Bomb: Re-thinking Radiological Terror", by James M. Acton; M. Brooke Rogers; Peter D. Zimmerman, DOI: 10.1080/00396330701564760, Survival, Volume 49, Issue 3 September 2007, pages 151 - 168

These are references to scientific journals, not hearsay by journalists.Biophys (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question for Biophys: Just one hour ago you created the brand new Category:Victims of radiological poisoning as a second sub-cat of Category:Nuclear terrorism. I've just finished comparing the 3 articles in this new category with the article about Litvinenko, and I could not discern any significant distinction between them in terms of how they died -- all were "Victims of radiological poisoning". So why on earth do we need two separate categories? It seems to me that it would make good sense to merge Category:Nuclear terrorism victims into Category:Victims of radiological poisoning, which strikes me as a better name for the category (although the name may need to be tweaked slightly for clarity). Cgingold (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'K, let's keep only Category:Victims of radiological poisoning for now if that is consensus opinion.Biophys (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cgingold & nom, as in any case, small and (let's hope) unlikely to expand. Are the "medical professionals" RS's on terrorism? Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cgingold, but the victims of radiological poisoning category should not be a subcategory of Category:Nuclear terrorism. Being poisoned by radiological means is not necessarily terrorism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and remove from the category;Nuclear Terrorism Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my own comments above, and remove from inapt parent cat per Good Olfactory. Cgingold (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I support the proposed merge ... now, what would be an appropriate parent category for Category:Victims of radiological poisoning? Category:Victims of poisoning doesn't (and probably shouldn't) exist and Category:Deaths by poisoning may not be the best parent, since victims of radiological poisoning may (hypothetically) survive. (Perhaps the new category should be titled Category:Deaths by radiological poisoning?) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to your last suggestion -- that was one of the possibilities I had in mind when I said it might need to be tweaked. The question is, do we want to restrict it to deaths? But of course, any renaming would require a separate CFD in any event. However, I've gone ahead and changed the parent cat to Category:Crime victims and Category:Radiation health effects. Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I agree with last comment/action by User:Cgingold. But there are two differences between "Victims of radiological poisoning" and "Deaths by radiological poisoning": (a) "Victims" not necessarily died (Nikolay Khokhlov survived a radiological poisoning), and (b) "Victims" assume existence of a harmful intention by perpetrators, whereas "Deaths" can be a result of an accident (all people who died as a result of Chernobyl disaster belong to "Deaths by radiological poisoning"). So, I suggest to keep Category:Victims of radiological poisoning.Biophys (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're discussing this question, I myself would prefer to keep the broader term "victims" precisely for the reason outlined by Biophys. At the same time it's worth noting that in this context, the word "victim" does not necessarily impute harmful intent: a person who has been accidentally poisoned by a radioactive substance is also said to be a "victim". So we may want to add the word "intentional". Cgingold (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. This sounds reasonable, but maybe too complicated. Whatever you and others decide is fine.Biophys (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything useful, though I don't see anything useful here. csloat (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2008 (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.

Category:AYSC

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 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Honestly, I have no idea what this category is for. The creator hasn't edited again since the day he created this category, July 9, 2006. Cgingold (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably, the "Asian Youth Services Committee", which is referenced in the only article that's in the category. Probably someone misunderstood how categories work, and attached a category of which the article subject is a member or which operates in that place. --Lquilter (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed the initialism, I imagine you're on the right track in your conjecture as to what he had in mind. Cgingold (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lquilter. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lquilter. --Jklamo (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (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.

Category:Vector Supercars

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:Vector Motors. Kbdank71 12:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vector Supercars to Category:Vector

Nominator's rationale: To be more consistent with the other companies in the category this should be named Vector. Also, the company is no longer named Vector Supercars, but Vector Motors. The "Motors" part of other companies is left off for their categories so I think it should be left off for this one too. swa q 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Vector Motors to match parent article. "Motors" is not left off for all the other categories (e.g., General Motors), and "Vector" has too many more important meanings for Category:Vector to be a good name for this category. Quale (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I was thinking of Ford in particular, but I think you're right. I had forgotten about the other meanings of Vector. Category:Vector Motors was my second choice anyway. swa q 21:33, 28 March 2008 (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.

Category:Members of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines

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 12:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines to Category:Association of Asia Pacific Airlines members

Nominator's rationale: Renaming will match the other categories within the Category:Airline trade associations category Россавиа ^Диалог 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify - Categorizing companies by trade associations or other business organizations they're members of is not helpful and is overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. As I said on the related CFDs (March 27), businesses are frequently members of or associated with numerous trade groups, lobbying groups, regulatory boards, unions, and so on and so on. Much better to simply list trade and other organizations on the company article, and to include representative or notable members in the organization article -- that makes the context and significance clear and, by the way, provides an opportunity for referencing inclusion, which should be done. --Lquilter (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify per Lquilter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If deleted, the Category:Association of Asia Pacific Airlines also needs to be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. --Lquilter (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should this be expanded to all member categories in Category:Airline trade associations? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert to a nav template. I think in this case, a navigation template would be a better choice then a list. It is my belief that readers just want to find other like articles and not additional details about when a company jointed and for this purpose, the nav template is the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Association of Asia Pacific Airlines as per the same arguments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_27#Category:AACO_members. In comment to Lquilter, membership of the APA is not non-defining to these companies, it is not akin to Category:Bald people. Of course, membership in these organisations should also be mentioned in the article, and I will take it up with the project and have this implemented by way of inclusion in the infobox --Россавиа ^Диалог 00:35, 2 April 2008 (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.

Category:Missile weapons

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:Projectile weapons. Kbdank71 12:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Projectile weapons. Using the word "missile" in the name is somewhat ambiguous & confusing. This is a more accurate description, and also is consistent with the parent cat, Category:Projectiles. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cgingold (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Not consistent with article-space, however. Rename to Category:Ranged weapons, unless there's a compelling case to rename ranged weapon to projectile weapon (or otherwise). Alai (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created the category. I agree missile weapons is an ambigious albeit correct name and think both projectile and ranged weapons are much better suited. Don't have a solid opinion which of the two names is better. Nik Sage ^{(talk/contrib)} 10:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Projectile weapons. I think it is more appropriate as I feel that missile is "too modern" to categorize the sling. --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:40, 29 March 2008 (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.

Category:Twins 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: rename. Kbdank71 12:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Twins members to Category:Twins (band) members

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (Twins (band)) and to avoid confusion with other uses of "Twins". Among other things, "Twins members" could be interepreted as referring to: an incorrectly-titled category for people who are twins, Minnesota Twins players, or cast members of Twins (1925 film), Twins (1988 film), Twins (pornographic film), or Twins (TV series). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as creator. The "Minnesota Twins" argument got me on this one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2008 (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.

Category:Italian football logos

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 7#Category:Italian football logos Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Augustinian universities

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 12:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Augustinian universities to Category:Augustinian universities and colleges

Nominator's rationale: Convention for institutions of higher education is "universities and colleges," and there are institutions which use both names present in the category. Compare at Category:Holy Cross universities and colleges and Category:Jesuit universities and colleges. -choster (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 29 March 2008 (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.

Category:Franciscan Colleges and Universities

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 12:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Franciscan Colleges and Universities to Category:Franciscan universities and colleges

Nominator's rationale: In addition to the corrected capitalization, "universities and colleges" is the prevalent form for institutions of higher education; compare at Category:Holy Cross universities and colleges and Category:Jesuit universities and colleges. choster (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 29 March 2008 (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.

Category:Chevreulia

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 20:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a genus of plants which contains only one species. The cat will probably never have more than one entry. The article within can be moved to Category:Asteraceae. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment same as next. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (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.

Category:Cheirolophus

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 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a genus of plants that contains only one species. The cat will never have more than one entry. The article in the cat can be put in Category:Asteraceae. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a wider scheme to have a category for every genus? If so keep. It's hard to tell, as some idiot has put all the geni with sub-cats into the main cat as well, as well as all the species. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know there's no scheme to make these genus cats; it's a bot that churned one out automatically for every new genus page it wrote last year, at least under the Asteraceae. I just figured we don't need a cat for every one of the gazillion genera out there, especially if they only have one species. Monotypic genera can go under the family Asteraceae cat. I'm trying to tease out the mess right now. Cheers, - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two more cats I'd like to add to the debate are Category:Gamochaeta and Category:Leucheria, both single-species genera. Also, Category:Loricaria is giving me angst because Loricaria is a page on the Fish genus of that name, and Loricaria (plant) hasn't been written yet. The Loricaria category is a list of plants. I suggest it either be deleted or have the plants taken out of it and be re-subcatted under the appropriate fish family. I don't know how the fish-oriented Wikipedians prefer their categories. Cheers, - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, but I would roll them all into a single nom quickly, & tag them all. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (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.

Category:Religious News Analysts

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 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overly-narrow category apparently created for a single article. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also ambiguous in more than one way. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Right you are -- hadn't even noticed that. Cgingold (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (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.

Category:Orthodox missionaries

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 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orthodox missionaries to Category:Eastern Orthodox missionaries

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform with parent Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians. The current name is ambiguous as there are also Oriental Orthodox Christians, and neither is a subgroup of the other. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Kyriakos (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:43, 29 March 2008 (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.

[1] "Ushering in the era of nuclear terrorism", by Patterson, Andrew J. MD, PhD, Critical Care Medicine, v. 35, p.953-954, 2007.

[2] "Beyond the Dirty Bomb: Re-thinking Radiological Terror", by James M. Acton; M. Brooke Rogers; Peter D. Zimmerman, DOI: 10.1080/00396330701564760, Survival, Volume 49, Issue 3 September 2007, pages 151 - 168

[1]

[2]