Revision as of 05:28, 28 January 2008 editJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 edits →Category:Pseudoscience: reply to obviously irritated editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:38, 28 January 2008 edit undoJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 edits →Category:Pseudoscience: withdrawing as nomNext edit → | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
==== Category:Pseudoscience ==== | ==== Category:Pseudoscience ==== | ||
{{archive top}} | |||
:] - {{lc1|Pseudoscience}}<br /> | :] - {{lc1|Pseudoscience}}<br /> | ||
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' {{{3|Categorizing an article as pseudoscience is asserting the POV that the subject of the article is pseudoscience, even when that categorization is disputed. ], which is non-negotiable, forces us ''not'' to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize an article as such when that is disputed. As per ]: ''Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.'' ] <small>]</small> 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)}}} | :<s>'''Nominator's rationale:''' {{{3|Categorizing an article as pseudoscience is asserting the POV that the subject of the article is pseudoscience, even when that categorization is disputed. ], which is non-negotiable, forces us ''not'' to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize an article as such when that is disputed. As per ]: ''Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.'' ] <small>]</small> 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</s>}}} | ||
---- | |||
I can see that the arbCom decision on this subject, already provides substantial guidance on how to address categorization of articles that are currently included in this category, meaning that deletion may not be the best option. Nonetheless, each and every article in this category will need to be evaluated in the context of these arbcom decisions: (a) ]; (b) ]; and (c) ]. I move to withdraw this CfD, as nom in the context of this proposal. ] <small>]</small> 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
*'''Delete''' as nom, and move all members of this category to ]. ] <small>]</small> 20:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as nom, and move all members of this category to ]. ] <small>]</small> 20:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
Line 131: | Line 136: | ||
: so further action may need to be taken. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | : so further action may need to be taken. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
::''made by an irritated admin who is in over their head, who is being far from neutral, is being partial, and is favoring fringe POV pushers who hate their pet pseudosciences being called by their right name'' - I think that you may need to consider to take that disparagement back. It simply reflects ''very'' poorly on you and shows an amazing degree of bad faith on your part. If at all, the one that seems irritated is nobody but you. ] <small>]</small> 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | ::''made by an irritated admin who is in over their head, who is being far from neutral, is being partial, and is favoring fringe POV pushers who hate their pet pseudosciences being called by their right name'' - I think that you may need to consider to take that disparagement back. It simply reflects ''very'' poorly on you and shows an amazing degree of bad faith on your part. If at all, the one that seems irritated is nobody but you. ] <small>]</small> 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
==== Museums in (city in Japan) ==== | ==== Museums in (city in Japan) ==== |
Revision as of 05:38, 28 January 2008
< January 26 | January 28 > |
---|
January 27
Category:Batman amusement rides
- Is this category really Misplaced Pages class? It just shows roller coasters that are Batman-themed. There are so many out there, the theme could be changed, and the category is just too specific. I say delete. --CPGACoast (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:NUS presidents
- Propose renaming Category:NUS presidents to Category:to be determined by consensus
- Nominator's rationale: Using acronyms in titles is deprecated, especially when the acronym has multiple uses - within student movements in the English speaking world alone, "NUS" can mean the UK, Australian or ex Canadian national unions. Then there's the National University of Singapore and many others. The article on NUS UK is at National Union of Students of the United Kingdom but I'm not sure if that would be too long for a category title. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in favor of the list in the main article. I have trouble seeing being president of a coalition of student governments as so defining as to rise to the level of categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:As Told By Ginger
- Suggest deletion of Category:As Told By Ginger - Unlikely to be populated. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Otto4711 (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Halls of fame inductees
- Suggest merging Category:Halls of fame inductees to Category:Halls of Fame inductees
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - obvious duplicate categories. The parent is Category:Halls of fame but the subcats all capitalize "Fame" as part of the formal names of the Halls. I have no strong opinion about which is kept but we only need one.
There are also a number of duplicated subcats (e.g. Category:Cowboy Halls of Fame and Category:Cowboy halls of fame) that present a slightly different issue of capitalization. I can add them to this nomination if y'all think the discussion is similar enough to do them all together.Otto4711 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I nominated some of these for speedy renaming from the use of caps to the ones using lowercase. (When the category refers to a "hall of fame" or "halls of fame" in the general sense, it is not a proper noun and no caps is needed.) The new ones have been created but the old ones have not been deleted yet via the speedy process. I expect they will be deleted soon; the process is not so "speedy". Snocrates 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. OK, that's good, then forget about that last bit. Otto4711 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reverse merge. It's a common noun phrase, so "Fame" shouldn't be capitalized.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reverse merge per above. The word fame only becomes capitalised when used as part of the title of a specific hall of fame, not for halls of fame as a general term. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Rockabilly Hall of Fame
- Propose renaming Category:Rockabilly Hall of Fame to Category:Rockabilly Hall of Fame inductees
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match other inductees categories. Otto4711 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom for consistency. Snocrates 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor
- Propose renaming Category:International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor to Category:International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor inductees
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match other inductees categories. Otto4711 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom for consistency. Snocrates 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Grammy Hall of Fame Awards
- Propose renaming Category:Grammy Hall of Fame Awards to Category:Grammy Hall of Fame Award recipients
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the list articles for the recipients, including List of Grammy Hall of Fame Award recipients A-D. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate and Turkish Beyliks
- Propose renaming Category:Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate and Turkish Beyliks to Category:Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and Turkish beyliks
- Nominator's rationale: Category ought to be renamed to match the Template:Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and Turkish beyliks and the lead article for this categoty, Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. Aramgar (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame
- Propose renaming Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame to Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match similar categories. Or in the alternative, delete as a non-defining award or honor given by a magazine. Otto4711 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as overcategorization by non-defining award that is the equivalent of a published list. (How's that for layering on the reasons?) If not deleted, then rename as Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees. --Lquilter (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Lquilter. Not quite the same as other "halls of fame" categories. Snocrates 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Pseudoscience
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Category:Pseudoscience - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing an article as pseudoscience is asserting the POV that the subject of the article is pseudoscience, even when that categorization is disputed. WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable, forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize an article as such when that is disputed. As per WP:CATEGORY: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see that the arbCom decision on this subject, already provides substantial guidance on how to address categorization of articles that are currently included in this category, meaning that deletion may not be the best option. Nonetheless, each and every article in this category will need to be evaluated in the context of these arbcom decisions: (a) Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Obvious_pseudoscience; (b) Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Questionable_science; and (c) Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. I move to withdraw this CfD, as nom in the context of this proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nom, and move all members of this category to List of pseudoscientific theories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. , a basic misunderstanding of category pseudoscience. Jefffire (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Care to enlighten me on my misunderstading? It would be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Follow the link, we've been down this path before. Jefffire (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did follow the link, but my arguments are not being addressed by you or any of the people commenting for "keep". All I see are accusations of bad faith, that in itself looks as bad faith in itsef. Categories have a place in Misplaced Pages, and so do lists. My argument is to use lists as suggested in WP:CATEGORY. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The list is useful for inclusion of the "softer" and more uncertain cases, along with the clearcut cases. The category is still useful for the clearcut cases, like homeopathy. We need both a list and a category. The category should be reserved for obvious cases, as determined by the ArbCom in the first two of their four groupings. See: WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience & Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. Nominator also close to violating WP:POINT with this nomination. Pseudoscience is defined and a well-understood concept used in introductory science classes. Claiming it is a POV is like claiming that labeling something a planet is a POV since some people believe the Earth isn't a planet. If this rationale flies, what's to prevent us from deleting Category:Planets to appease the fringe beliefs of those who maintain modern geocentrism? The entire rationale is flawed and specious. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Good faith nomination, though I still say keep. Pseudoscience has a definition, but whether it applies to a topic is what generates the POV. In your example, planet isn't POV, but categorizing Pluto under Category:Planets would be. --Nealparr 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's a bad faith nomination because Jossi made this after being involved at Talk:Homeopathy with a rather protracted discussion about whether there was enough evidence that homeopathy was pseudoscience to so-categorize it. Instead of dealing with the fact that it is often named as a classic pseudoscience in many sources, Jossi decided to place the entire category up for deletion. Secondly, your point about Pluto is exactly why this nomination deserves to go down in flames. Imagine someone arguing over the classification of Pluto and then having the administrator go in and nominate Category:Planets for deletion with the rationale: Categorizing an article as a planet is asserting the POV that the subject of the article is a planet, even when that categorization is disputed. WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable, forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize an article as such when that is disputed. As per WP:CATEGORY: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- You can claim "bad faith" nomination all you want. The poimnt I made at Homeopathy applies to all similar articles, and for the same reasons as stated in the nom. You may disagree with me, and I respect that, but I do not accept your accusations of bad faith. You need to learn to agree to disagree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep this nomination appears to be an attempt to get around a growing informed consensus on homeopathy by taking the debate to another forum. Almost every other article within the category clearly belongs there. This makes it a bad faith nomination. The category title allows for a well-defined membership critera, and the category purpose is to allow for topics related to the understanding of pseudoscience, so a list cannot replace the entire category. LinaMishima (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. There are many clearly defined and widely accepted psuedosciences and therefore it warrants a category. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
*Keep Categories in MediaWiki are a technical device used for relating information as much as they are for organizing information. In other words, they're just as much folksonomy as they are taxonomy. Without them, users must rely on internal wiki links and searches to find related information, ignoring the enormous benefits "tagging" allows. If reliable sources in an article demonstrate that a topic is related to other topics of the same category, it should be included. This particular "tag" is useful to readers in that way. --Nealparr 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Though I'm saying keep, it should definitely be monitored and cleaned from time to time to prevent it's misuse. Sometimes purely religious articles end up in there, wrongly. --
Nealparr 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, can you give me some examples? LinaMishima (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at how it is currently used, we have New Age in there which then includes stuff like Angel. This is nonsense because these things are not sciences, pseudo or otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see the problem with New Age, however - a lot of stuff around it talks about 'forces' and 'energy' and some authors then tried to tie in Quantum Physics to form a basis for the spirituality. I agree that the inclusion in the category feels odd, however, but that's nothing some more vigorous rules would not deal with. LinaMishima (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- It used to contain things like reincarnation, prana, and qi. The first being solely religious and the last two referring to a concept of a "spiritual energy" that predates modern science. That goes to what you were saying about the "forces" and "energies". They're not related to science. They're spiritual concepts that predate science. Some of the New Age ones are iffy because they don't make any claims regarding science. List of occultists has nothing to do with science. Some forms of divination (which has been tagged) have nothing to do with science, or claims of science. Astrology, sure, because it makes pseudoscientific statements about planetary influences. Tarot (also tagged) doesn't make statements related to science. The White Goddess isn't related to science. Spiritualism (religious movement) isn't related to science. There seems to be a tendency to equate claims that one can be skeptical about as being pseudoscientific claims, whether the claim purports to be scientific or not. One that caught my eye as wrong that may have been tagged by accident is lucid dreaming. While it's true that before the 1980s lucid dreaming was a topic among paranormal researchers, it was subsequently proved to exist, in a lab, by reputable scientists. Now it's an accepted scientific topic, and not pseudoscience. I don't think the category needs to be deleted, but it's certainly prone to misuse. --Nealparr 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- More rules would be creepy. We already have NPOV which says clearly We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation. And if twaddle about forces and energy qualify, shall I add Star Wars and Star Trek which are notorious for their bad science? Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's a difference between fiction and misappropriation. LinaMishima (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Point followed. The category simply needs more stringent enforcing of its scope, of what may be covered by it (i.e. only things that make a claim to be scientific in basis). We find similar creeping in of entries for all categories, I've noticed LinaMishima (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good points. Definitely needs policing and only subjects that are falsifiable and/or make scientific claims should be included. BTW, I parse the ArbCom decision's four categories here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Misunderstanding_of_two_very_different_matters . -- Fyslee / talk 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- More rules would be creepy. We already have NPOV which says clearly We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation. And if twaddle about forces and energy qualify, shall I add Star Wars and Star Trek which are notorious for their bad science? Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- It used to contain things like reincarnation, prana, and qi. The first being solely religious and the last two referring to a concept of a "spiritual energy" that predates modern science. That goes to what you were saying about the "forces" and "energies". They're not related to science. They're spiritual concepts that predate science. Some of the New Age ones are iffy because they don't make any claims regarding science. List of occultists has nothing to do with science. Some forms of divination (which has been tagged) have nothing to do with science, or claims of science. Astrology, sure, because it makes pseudoscientific statements about planetary influences. Tarot (also tagged) doesn't make statements related to science. The White Goddess isn't related to science. Spiritualism (religious movement) isn't related to science. There seems to be a tendency to equate claims that one can be skeptical about as being pseudoscientific claims, whether the claim purports to be scientific or not. One that caught my eye as wrong that may have been tagged by accident is lucid dreaming. While it's true that before the 1980s lucid dreaming was a topic among paranormal researchers, it was subsequently proved to exist, in a lab, by reputable scientists. Now it's an accepted scientific topic, and not pseudoscience. I don't think the category needs to be deleted, but it's certainly prone to misuse. --Nealparr 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see the problem with New Age, however - a lot of stuff around it talks about 'forces' and 'energy' and some authors then tried to tie in Quantum Physics to form a basis for the spirituality. I agree that the inclusion in the category feels odd, however, but that's nothing some more vigorous rules would not deal with. LinaMishima (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at how it is currently used, we have New Age in there which then includes stuff like Angel. This is nonsense because these things are not sciences, pseudo or otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, can you give me some examples? LinaMishima (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is just being used as an empty pejorative which is not NPOV. One might as well have a category of Heretical or Stupid. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: per WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience & Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, this category is not a WP:NPOV violation. HrafnStalk 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid category. Of course the true believers of fringe and pseudoscience topics will object to their pet theories, etc, will object and dispute the categorization - but that is no reason to delete the category. The comments made by the nom on Talk:Homeopathy just prior to this delete nomination seem highly pointy. Vsmith (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but clarify its purpose. I had hoped that an additional CfD may help bring some clarification regarding the oft-quoted ArbCom decision. Currently, here is the description of the category:
- This category comprises articles pertaining to pseudoscience. This includes:
- individuals (or organizations) that are notably associated with practicing or espousing pseudoscience — regardless of the merits of these associations
- individuals (or organizations) that are notably opposed to pseudoscience
- fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects
- subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another
- (Note that some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community.)
- It seems that the stated purpose of the category is inconsistent with the ArbCom decision, and I think further discussion is warranted. But the category is obviously useful, however controversial it may be. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Those criteria seem incompatible with WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience as well, which provides guidelines based on the ArbCom decision. It puts the criteria for what should be "categorized" as pseudoscience as those topics which are "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Many of the topics included probably fail that criteria. If this CfD fails, someone should do an RfC to create a better criteria that's compatible with the ArbCom decision. --Nealparr 03:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rework Keep per ArbCom decision and usefulness, but reword criteria for inclusion to reflect that decision, and remove any entry that doesn't meet that criteria. --Nealparr 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Deleting a whole category because of a disagreement about whether one subject (in this case homeopathy) should be included is a gross violation of POINT, made by an irritated admin who is in over their head, who is being far from neutral, is being partial, and is favoring fringe POV pushers who hate their pet pseudosciences being called by their right name.
- WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience & Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience allow the use of this category, so this admin is going against an ArbCom decision, which stated:
- Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
- Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
- Homeopathy is an obvious pseudoscience, but even if one disputes that, it certainly is still generally considered a pseudoscience. Nothing better than that, and therefore "may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification," or at least "may be categorized as pseudoscience."
- FYI, I parse the ArbCom decision's four categories here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Misunderstanding_of_two_very_different_matters .
- This Cfd is also a disruptive repetition of old attempts. Deletion of real concepts does not remove them from the real world, and Misplaced Pages reflects the real world. I have advised this admin (on the homeopathy talk page) to sticking to refereeing the article, which needs to be done, but this move:
- reveals great ignorance of the subject,
- reveals ignorance of policy,
- is a pretty serious disruption,
- a violation of POINT, and
- forum shopping,
- so further action may need to be taken. -- Fyslee / talk 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- made by an irritated admin who is in over their head, who is being far from neutral, is being partial, and is favoring fringe POV pushers who hate their pet pseudosciences being called by their right name - I think that you may need to consider to take that disparagement back. It simply reflects very poorly on you and shows an amazing degree of bad faith on your part. If at all, the one that seems irritated is nobody but you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Museums in (city in Japan)
- Category:Museums in Atami, Shizuoka
- Category:Museums in Yokohama
- Category:Museums in Tsukuba, Ibaraki
- Category:Museums in Tokorozawa, Saitama
- Category:Museums in Sendai
- Category:Museums in Saitama, Saitama
- Category:Museums in Osaka
- Category:Museums in Nara, Nara
- Category:Museums in Nagoya
- Category:Museums in Nagasaki
- Category:Museums in Mitaka, Tokyo
- Category:Museums in Matsudo, Chiba
- Category:Museums in Kyoto
- Category:Museums in Kure, Hiroshima
- Category:Museums in Kurashiki, Okayama
- Category:Museums in Kitakyushu
- Category:Museums in Inuyama, Aichi
- Category:Museums in Ikeda, Osaka
- Category:Museums in Hiroshima
- Category:Museums in Dazaifu, Fukuoka
- Category:Museums in Bizen, Okayama
Merge: I want to merge all of these cats to Category:Museums in Japan. The majority of these cats have only one or two members. The few with more can do fine merged. I am only keeping Category:Museums in Tokyo as it has the most members. Basically, most of the cats have very few articles in them and are unneeded. Reywas92 17:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge per nom Gatoclass (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I looked at about half of these categories and indeed, they were mostly 1-5 articles in each, and it would be fine, in my view, from the point of view of Category:Museums in Japan to merge. But, it seems to me that each of these current categories could have the relevant city category, and this would be a useful subcategory there. --Lquilter (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bulk merge. If this merge is done, then it needs to be a multiple upmerge to
- The prefect or city category (if no attractions category or do we create the attractions category in that case?)
- Visitor attractions category by city or prefect
- Museums in Japan
- Some of these categories are large enough to merit retention. Also, these are all a part of a series, so unless we have some that will only ever contain one entry, I don't see how we can support a merge. I'd suggest rethinking this and getting all of the subcats for the current entries consistent. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- can be removed, and and or can be added. Reywas92 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think even the small categories could be bigger in time. Also per Lquilter they serve as subcategories of and so simple upmerge may not be entirely helpful to readers. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they could be bigger in time, but how much? They'd go from one article to maybe four. Still small categories. To John below, we could keep Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as they are the next biggest, but they are still small, and the others are smaller. Reywas92 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep only Hiroshima (10), Kyoto (5), Osaka (3), Nagasaki (6). Multiple upmerge to Visitors attractions, city, museums in Japan etc for the rest. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why not also keep Yokohama which has other museums that will get articles at some point? The fact that museums exist without articles is a reason to keep these as a series. The articles will come since most museums are going to be notable. Why undo the category only to recreate it later? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since the Yokohama Curry Museum has in fact closed down, there is only 1 current museum there. I don't have strong views, but categories like this are very easy to recreate. I'm not so sure every museum will get an article in the foreseeable, plus museum closures are I believe rather common in Japan. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Let's not delete big categories. --Deerstop (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- So are you suggesting that we ignore being part of a series which is an objective criteria in favor of being big which is completely subjective? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a case of objective vs subjective criteria. I think it is clear that not every city deserves a "Museums in ... " category, just as not every person deserves an eponymous one. So this is not a "wider scheme" as described by WP:OCAT, and size is therefore a perfectly valid criterion. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the question is being posed exactly that way. Big is OK and part of a series is to be ignored. If it is part of a series, then size does not matter, clearly a size of one is the minimum for albums by. True not every city may deserve a category, but that can not be discussed fairly in a group nomination. I suspect that most cites listed here have more then three museums which seems to define big for the purpose of keeping the category. No harm is done by keeping. Extra work is avoided by researching which of these is not likely to be more then one and then nominating only those. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think I would rather have no "Museums by city" categories at all than to have a sub-category for every city with a museum - think of the nightmare that would cause in the US. This was discussed in a nomination not too long ago. Fortunately we don't need to make that choice. If we say there is no wider scheme then there is none, but this should be consistent globally. Look how few other Museum by city categories there are. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Saturday Night Live music
- Suggest merging Category:Saturday Night Live music to Category:Saturday Night Live
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is capturing a fairly random assortment of SNL-related articles that include greater or lesser amounts of content related to music or musical guests. There's nothing here that warrants separate categorization and the main category is not so enormous that splitting out these few articles (some of which are there already) is warranted. Otto4711 (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Oregon Music Hall of Fame
- Category:Oregon Music Hall of Fame - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - as non-defining/minor award or honor. Oregon Music Hall of Fame has no article. If retained, rename to Category:Oregon Music Hall of Fame inductees to match similar inductee categories. Otto4711 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as overcategorization by award. Appears to include anybody who is anybody in music and happens to come from Oregon. Snocrates 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's a real award. We already have Category:Oregon musicians for anybody in music who happens to come from Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rename I've written an article for Oregon Music Hall of Fame, a notable statewide award. Katr67 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Katr67 -- You should know that "categories for discussion" uses a different standard than "articles for discussion". AFD does look at the "notability" of the subject, but CFD looks to see whether using the subject as a classification "defines" the articles it's applied to. (WP:CAT) In general award-winner categories are considered overcategorization, and it's felt that it's better for a number of reasons if the article for the award just include a list of award-winners. Would you mind addressing your comments in light of categorization guidelines, not AFD guidelines? --Lquilter (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm aware they're different. I addressed notability because the nominator claimed the award was minor and had no article, which seems to be a notability issue. Thanks for linking to "overcategorization". It is the second !voter, not the nom, who brought that up. I'll gladly append the list of nominees to the article if the category is deleted. Katr67 (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to see some more independent sourcing for the article since much of it is sourced by the Hall's own website. That said, I would still say that this category should be listified and deleted, as a state-level HoF doesn't strike me as being categorizably defining. Otto4711 (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm aware they're different. I addressed notability because the nominator claimed the award was minor and had no article, which seems to be a notability issue. Thanks for linking to "overcategorization". It is the second !voter, not the nom, who brought that up. I'll gladly append the list of nominees to the article if the category is deleted. Katr67 (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Divas
- Propose renaming Category:Divas to Category:Prima donnas
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - to clarify that this is for opera singers and not random women (or men) that VH1 or the gays have declared to be divas (c.f. Aretha Franklin and Whitney Houston). Otto4711 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - "Prima donna" means something else entirely to most people. I don't think it's a very useful name. Why not just start a category called "Operatic divas"? Gatoclass (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have no objection to renaming this to Category:Opera divas assuming that term is in use. The category itself cites Prima donna which is about (for the most part) the opera singers. Otto4711 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support either suggestions. "Prima Donna" (Italian) literally means First Lady, and thus applies to the actress playing the lead part in an opera. The primary meaning is that a leading female opera singer. Wider meanings in popular use arise because such ladies have traditionally been temperamental and difficult to please. I assume that "diva" is related to the Hindi word for a goddess. Opera is in origin an Italian artform. Accordfingly, of the two possibilities I would prefer "Prima Donnas" (as nom). It may be necessary to provide a short headnote (in either case) as to its intended scope in the hope of keeping other uses off the page. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- You assume wrong - Diva is Latin for goddess; Devi is the Sanscrit etc word. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to something, anything. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Alumni
- Category:Alumni of the Central School of Speech and Drama - Template:Lc1
- Category:Alumni of the Webber Douglas Academy of Dramatic Art - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining. But since that hasn't a chance of passing, rename to match other Foo alumni categories. Otto4711 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per UK naming convention as in Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom (and per cfds of 25 Dec 2007 relisted at 31 Dec 2007). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't imply that the previous discussion was to keep it was clearly a no consensus close. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as defined and do not rename as fits UK alumni category conventions. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fitting a naming convention is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- No but it's a reason to not rename to something that doesn't fit the convention. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fitting a naming convention is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as nondefining. Snocrates 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. After looking at the entries, I'm convinced that the graduates may be defining for the school, but I don't see a strong indication that being a graduate is defining for the individuals. If others agree that the graduates are defining for the school, then they should be listed in the school article along with the year they graduated. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees as a Performer
- Suggest merging Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees as a Performer to Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - I'm unclear as to the utility of separating out inductees-as-performers from other inductees. If retained the category needs to be renamed to something like Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame performer inductees. The current name is ungrammatical and the capitalization is wrong. Otto4711 (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. The goal may be to suggest that those inducted as songwriters or promoters somehow do not belong in the same rarefied air as the performers, but that's ridiculous. Put them all in the same category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The reason there is a seperate category is because the performer category is by far the largest, most high profile and most diverse category in the Rock and Roll hall of fame, and the process for inducting them is notably different than the other categories. When I created it, I figured that there would be some use for seperating the artists from the rest. -- Scorpion 16:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should there be more subcats? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly, but the rest of the categories only have a few dozen inductees each (in one case, 6), while the performer one has 150+ -- Scorpion 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should there be more subcats? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Dan Brown
- Propose renaming Category:Dan Brown to Category:Novels by Dan Brown
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. the contents of the category are all articles about his novels except one which is about a character from one of the novels. Tim! (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rename- Because of category's contents, renaming would be best per proposer's idea
. -Mastrchf91- 15:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rename. There are only articles likely to be created on the authors works themselves rather than the author himself. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:John H. Meier
- Category:John H. Meier - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 11:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. The one non-bio article (about a book for which Meier wrote an afterword) can easily be linked through the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Year of birth missing (living people)
- Suggest merging Category:Year of birth missing (living people) to Category:Year of birth missing
- Nominator's rationale: Merge, Living people is a maintenance category. As such, the category is not meant to have subcategories. Merge to Category:Year of birth missing. Gilliam (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the intent behind the category is to alert users who research missing years of birth to not bother finding the date (month and day) of birth, since this is unnecessary for most living people biography articles per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays. Thus, having this subcategory is useful for users who are researching for missing years of birth, because it allows those who want to research years of birth but not dates of birth to work from a separate category list. Snocrates 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Error
- Propose renaming Category:Error to Category:Errors
- Nominator's rationale: Procedural nom, speedy suggested by User:Vegaswikian, contested by User:Grutness and User:Snocrates. Brief discussion can be seen here -- pb30<talk> 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Catscratch
- Suggest deletion of Category:Catscratch - There is only one article in the category. Even if more were added, the category would not be substantial. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlikely to become populated. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary eponymous TV series category and per clear precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Stock characters by name
- Suggest merging Category:Stock characters by name to Category:Stock characters
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - I don't see the utility in categorizing these characters "by name" (whatever that even means) separate from other stock characters. Otto4711 (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)