Misplaced Pages

:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 10: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:13, 13 December 2005 editFrankZappo (talk | contribs)93 edits →[] to []← Previous edit Revision as of 01:17, 13 December 2005 edit undoFrankZappo (talk | contribs)93 edits →[] to []Next edit →
Line 57: Line 57:
:'''Oppose.''' As above, plus "of Questionable Validity" sounds very POV to me. ] 20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) :'''Oppose.''' As above, plus "of Questionable Validity" sounds very POV to me. ] 20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


:'''Comment.''' This proposal, as stated by Hackwrench, is a complete red herring. "Pseudoscience" and "Science of Questionable Validity" are both value judgements. The article on Pseudoscience clearly states that "pseudoscience" is characterized by a lack of adherence to the scientific method. One cannot judge whether some endeavour X does or does not adhere to the scientific method without knowing what methods X uses, on what it bases its claims, what its experimental procedures are, how it draws its conclusions, etc. In cases where such an examination has been performed and it has been found that X indeed does not adhere to the scientific method, the category "Pseudoscience" may be perfectly apt. The problem arises when the category "Pseudoscience" is used simply to discredit something that the categorizer has not studied and knows nothing about. This has happened in the case of Aetherometry and a bunch of other entries pertaining to non-mainstream/dissident science. Just because the conclusions from the given endeavour contradict some presently accepted scientific "truths" does '''not''', in and of itself, allow one to conclude that the endeavour does not adhere to the scientific method. Just because the research has not been published, or talked about, in mainstream journals, does '''not''', in and of itself, allow one to conclude that the reaserach is not properly scientific. (And, by the way, "properly scientific" does '''not''' mean that it cannot make errors.) Unless one '''knows''' and '''understands''' the methods that the research is employing, one has no business categorizing it as "pseudoscientific". :'''Comment.''' This proposal, as stated by Hackwrench, is a complete red herring. "Pseudoscience" and "Science of Questionable Validity" are both value judgements. The article on Pseudoscience clearly states that "pseudoscience" is characterized by a lack of adherence to the scientific method. One cannot judge whether some endeavour X does or does not adhere to the scientific method without knowing what methods X uses, on what it bases its claims, what its experimental procedures are, how it draws its conclusions, etc. In cases where such an examination has been performed and it has been found that X indeed does not adhere to the scientific method, the category "Pseudoscience" may be perfectly apt. The problem arises when the category "Pseudoscience" is used simply to discredit something that the categorizer has not studied and knows nothing about. This has happened in the case of Aetherometry and a bunch of other entries pertaining to non-mainstream/dissident science. Just because the conclusions from the given endeavour contradict some presently accepted scientific "truths" does '''not''', in and of itself, allow one to conclude that the endeavour does not adhere to the scientific method. Just because the research has not been published, or talked about, in mainstream journals, does '''not''', in and of itself, allow one to conclude that the research is not properly scientific. (And, by the way, "properly scientific" does '''not''' mean that it cannot make errors.) Unless one '''knows''' and '''understands''' the methods that the research is employing, one has no business categorizing it as "pseudoscientific".


:What Misplaced Pages needs, in my opinion, is an additional, NPOV category for those scientific endeavours that have not been accepted into the mainstream, and whose scientific merits Misplaced Pages editors are not able to judge. It should be called "Non-Mainstream Sceince" or "Dissident Science" or "Research which We Are Unable to Judge". If, instead, you insist on shoving such endeavours into the category "Pseudoscience", then YES, you are giving evidence of a severe bias. It is not the category that is POV, it is your inistence - and a militant insistence, to boot - on applying it to cases where, by any honest and unbiased account, you have a clearly insufficient basis for judgement. ] 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) :What Misplaced Pages needs, in my opinion, is an additional, NPOV category for those scientific endeavours that have not been accepted into the mainstream, and whose scientific merits Misplaced Pages editors are not able to judge. It should be called "Non-Mainstream Science" or "Dissident Science" or "Research which We Are Unable to Judge". If, instead, you insist on shoving such endeavours into the category "Pseudoscience", then YES, you are giving evidence of a severe bias. It is not the category that is POV, it is your insistence - and a militant insistence, to boot - on applying it to cases where, by any honest and unbiased account, you have a clearly insufficient basis for judgement. ] 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


====] to ]==== ====] to ]====

Revision as of 01:17, 13 December 2005

December 10

Category:Entertainment in Pakistan

Very few countries have an entertainment category. They are little more than an extra tier to click through in the culture categories, and this one is completely empty. Delete CalJW 23:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:English organisations

See also the two nominations below. While there is some sense in separating out Scottish and Welsh organisations, trying to separate English ones from British ones will achieve nothing but to create inconsistency in categorisation and confusion amongst users. Delete Rhollenton 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Companies of England

Not a good idea. England is not a separate economy and it is not legally possible for a company to be incorporated "in England". This feeble start merely threatens to create confusion in Category:Companies of the United Kingdom, which is complex enough as it is. Delete Rhollenton 23:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Learned societies of England

Not a good idea. Learned societies do not operate at an England only level. Only one article has been moved from Category:Learned societies of the United Kingdom but that is one too many. Delete Rhollenton 23:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Walt Disney Company motion picture

Misnamed; redundant; Category:Disney films already exists. tregoweth 23:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Irish-Scots

Was nominated on WP:AFD by User:130.159.254.2 and User:PatGallacher. Articles for Deletion is not the place to discuss Categories for deletion. I am moving the deletion discussion for the category here. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 20:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Local councils of the United Kingdom to Category:Local authorities of the United Kingdom

It's perhaps a small issue but it would be more technically accurate to refer to institutions of government rather than councils. The Metropolitan Board of Works was a local authority but not a council, for instance. The elected local bodies in Scotland are technically 'corporations' and perhaps one could argue that Trades Councils are also 'local councils'. David | Talk 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, move. I'm not sure where you get that bit about Scottish corporations - the current local authorities are certainly Councils (whilst of course England used to have local corporations). Morwen - Talk 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Only that all the Scots I've ever met talked of "Glasgow Corporation". David | Talk 19:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Support move. --G Rutter 22:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience to Category:Science of Questionable Validity

Category is misleading and has fueled a revert war on Aetherometry Hackwrench 18:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. "Pseudoscience" is a failry-well defined description of certain theories. If there is an edit conflict at an article perhaps this isn't the correct category for that one article, or perhaps there are other dispute resolutions available. -Willmcw 21:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. The Pseudoscience article gives a good discussion on how and why some topics are so classified and the second paragraph of Aetherometry (at the time of writing) clearly shows why it should be classified as such ("aetherometry is not supported by scientific consensus, being in conflict with established theories such as relativity", etc ). --G Rutter 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose This is a specific area. All the latest legitimate research is of "Questionable Validity". And that phrase would invite pov edits concerning creationism. Rhollenton 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose don't be silly. — Dunc|☺ 11:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Pseudoscience is a well-known term; I've not previously heard this SQV noun phrase Ian Cairns 11:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons given. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. These are two different things altogether. Pseudscience is a standard term for things that are not contested, except by charlatans and cranks, who don't really count. Perpetual motion, stuff like that. There are other areas whose validity is questioned, but which is supported by at least some reasonable people with credentials.... not many, though. Classical psychoanalysis is the only one I can think of right off. Anyway, that's something altogether different. Herostratus 06:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. As above, plus "of Questionable Validity" sounds very POV to me. Sikyanakotik 20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This proposal, as stated by Hackwrench, is a complete red herring. "Pseudoscience" and "Science of Questionable Validity" are both value judgements. The article on Pseudoscience clearly states that "pseudoscience" is characterized by a lack of adherence to the scientific method. One cannot judge whether some endeavour X does or does not adhere to the scientific method without knowing what methods X uses, on what it bases its claims, what its experimental procedures are, how it draws its conclusions, etc. In cases where such an examination has been performed and it has been found that X indeed does not adhere to the scientific method, the category "Pseudoscience" may be perfectly apt. The problem arises when the category "Pseudoscience" is used simply to discredit something that the categorizer has not studied and knows nothing about. This has happened in the case of Aetherometry and a bunch of other entries pertaining to non-mainstream/dissident science. Just because the conclusions from the given endeavour contradict some presently accepted scientific "truths" does not, in and of itself, allow one to conclude that the endeavour does not adhere to the scientific method. Just because the research has not been published, or talked about, in mainstream journals, does not, in and of itself, allow one to conclude that the research is not properly scientific. (And, by the way, "properly scientific" does not mean that it cannot make errors.) Unless one knows and understands the methods that the research is employing, one has no business categorizing it as "pseudoscientific".
What Misplaced Pages needs, in my opinion, is an additional, NPOV category for those scientific endeavours that have not been accepted into the mainstream, and whose scientific merits Misplaced Pages editors are not able to judge. It should be called "Non-Mainstream Science" or "Dissident Science" or "Research which We Are Unable to Judge". If, instead, you insist on shoving such endeavours into the category "Pseudoscience", then YES, you are giving evidence of a severe bias. It is not the category that is POV, it is your insistence - and a militant insistence, to boot - on applying it to cases where, by any honest and unbiased account, you have a clearly insufficient basis for judgement. FrankZappo 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:London railway stations to Category:Railway stations in London

To bring the category name into line with the other categories, e.g. Category:Railway stations in Berkshire. Our Phellap 18:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Histories of cities in the United States

Category:British far-right

  • This category has been set up by a Left-winger who has been busy, with another, attacking those whom, in their opinion, are "far-right". But this is only their OPINION, something which Misplaced Pages are opposed to in general. Frankly it is an absolute scandal that the people and groups in this category are hear. Denis Walker is a lay preacher in the Methodist Church and a most devout Christian. Thousands of members, including numerous members of both Houses of Parliament, have passed through the Conservative Monday Club (its correct full name) and it is a monstrous slur upon those mainstream conservatives. The clear purpose of the individual who set up this category is to slur every organisation, and so all its members, and the individuals, as some sort of neo-Nazis, as that is the general term the broad Left use. If this is permitted to stand it will be a massive disgrace to Misplaced Pages. Robert I 20:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The thing is, if everyone from The Guardian to The Telegraph describes the Monday Club as being "far right" it would seem to be an objective description.Homey 21:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious attempt to demonise groups and people. The views of four or five left-wing journalists do not constitute fact, wherever they are printed. It is ludicrous to to refer to the Conservative Monday Club, which in 1990 had 36 members of parliament and an equal number of Peers as members, far right and non-conservative. I am a former member and am very offended. 213.122.43.210 08:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
You should cancel your subscriptions to the Times and the Telegraph then since they both use the term in reference to the Monday Club.Homey
  • I am not arguing on the merits of certain entries - I am arguing against a bald classification into a Category than can be construed as perjorative. The body of the article can address these issues better. Wizzy…☎ 09:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy/philosophy_template

Delete. Duplicate at Portal:Philosophy/navigation. Infinity0 11:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Melbourne Churches

The category is a duplicate of Category:Melbourne churches. Adz 10:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Melbourne churches has since been replaced with Category:Churches in Melbourne, so if somebody could delete Category:Melbourne churches that would be good. Thanks. -- Adz 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Major league personnel by team to Category:Major League Baseball personnel by team

Clarification. "Major league" could apply to any number of sports. - EurekaLott 04:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:British visitor attractions by locality to Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom by locality

Most of the categories for buildings etc use "of the United Kingdom" as does Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom.

Category:Famous Hispanic Americans to Category:Hispanic Americans

Redundant, not to mention the qualifier "Famous" is ill-defined. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand coastline → Category:Coastline of New Zealand

rename as per naming conventions. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)