Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 5 January 7 >

January 6

[edit]

Category:HBCU alumni

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or at the very least, turn into a container category that only has subcategories of HBCUs. There is no need to have someone in both this category and (e.g.) Category:Morehouse College alumni. I think the name should be changed as well if kept. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect would be useful if this were an established category and had things linking to it, but it was just created and can be deleted just as easily. Natureium (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (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:Fictional organizations designated as terrorist

[edit]
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.

Cutback dogs ttc Robyn bunk uno yuk Millburn g Thu Chi

The result of the discussion was: Merge. (non-admin closure) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This may be an appropriate categorization scheme, but it is in-universe to describe an organization as "designated as terrorist" rather than simply "terrorist". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:30, 6 January 2019 (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:Famous animals of Huntsville, Alabama

[edit]
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: Upmerge to Category:Individual animals in the United States. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've tried to figure out why we have this category of famous animals from Huntsville, Alabama but there is nothing at Huntsville, Alabama that reveals a reason and no other categories of famous animals from any other location. I think Miss Baker and Lily Flagg should just be listed with the other famous individual animals at Category:Individual animals in the United States where they are already listed. Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As creator of this category, I don't have a strong opinion. I created it because I found multiple instances of famous animals from Huntsville. N<3 after some years, so I can see why we would delete it. (There may be others, but I can't think of them just now.) In the end, the animals need to be categorized as famous animals AND Huntsville because of their ties to the city. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Famous" is to subjective to be the basis of a Wikipedia category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2019 (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:Autism quackery

[edit]
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 and rename to Category:Autism pseudoscience or equivalent. The argument that the existence of a category for this concept is itself an NPOV violation clearly does not have consensus. Evidence has been provided of the existence of pseudoscientific practices and beliefs related to autism, and substantial previous consensus exists for analogous categories. The misapplication of this category to specific individuals may constitute a BLP violation, but that is an issue that needs to be addressed by fixing those pages, not by deleting the category. There is therefore no consensus to delete. The arguments to keep are mostly about the validity of the category as a concept. There is little support for the argument that "quackery" is a neutral, non-pejorative term, in contrast to several reasoned arguments that "quackery" is unnecessarily prejudicial and colloquial. That term therefore needs to be replaced in the name of this category. "Category:Autism pseudoscience" has the strongest support, but an equivalent term would be acceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-neutral categorization of organizations, methods, and people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
Category creator's response Quack and Quackery are already widely-used terms both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. We have pages on Quackery, Radioactive quackery and a category on Category:Quacks. My hope for this category is that it will provide something that's specifically about Autism while also covering quacks, quack treatments and the side effects of / damage from those treatments. JoBrodie (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is useful to flag articles as explicitly addressing quackery and misinformation as it relates to autism because there are a number of harmful interventions specifically targeting the condition. Putting them in a category makes them easier to find. Seantellis (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename I don't know what a better name would be, but I'm sure we could find something that seems less POV. Natureium (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Quack' has a long and robust pedigree (see adjacent image). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose Autism pseudoscience or Autism-related pseudoscience could work if most people consider them to be more neutral than Autism quackery so perhaps that's the solution. However 'pseudoscience' is also an opinionated value judgment (ie it's not science) so ... not sure. We have a Quackery page which suggests its perceived informality isn't all that problematic, and plenty of people have been added to Category:Quacks. However if this brings a quick (as opposed to quack) resolution and more people are happy with it, let's change it :) JoBrodie (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudoscience would be better as the anti-vaccination causes autism issue is discussed there in a paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the pejorative term "quackery" is a blatant breach of WP:NPOV. It is an emotive term designed to stigmatise, and this sort of partisan terminology would not be tolerated in any other topic area. We do not, for example have a Category:Corporate Democrats, Category:Loony left, [[:Category:Trumptards] or any other such stigmatising categories.
Where reliable sources explicitly describe a topic as "pseudoscience", then that term may be used if WP:WEIGHT supports it. I'm not happy about the way that the term "pseudoscience" is applied to work which is merely disproven or invalidated, rather than to work which does not use the scientific method. But the use of "quack" is part of a quest by some editors for overtly partisan labelling which has no place in an NPOV encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well obviously I prefer renaming to deleting (I am the category's creator) but since WP already has both an article and a category called Quackery or Quacks I'm not sure what the NPOV objection is (or how the presumed POV objections were resolved for those pages, which now seem to be reasonably uncontroversial). If NPOV is a problem in this area then how is it that other people have been categorised as quacks? There are loads of people there, presumably being stigmatised.
Incientally I think this discussion arose after I applied the category to Jenny McCarthy (there were then a couple of reverts) - she definitely promotes autism quackery, or autism pseudoscience if you prefer that term, though is not herself a quack (so can't be categorised as Category:Quacks. Her autism activism makes up a big chunk on her page and I think the overall page should have either Autism quackery or Autism pseudoscience as a category. Her ideas that vaccines cause autism, or that she has cured her son of autism are wrong - her views on this would seem to be unambiguously quackish and pseudoscientific. (Have added a P to BrownHairedGirl's preceding comment WP:NOV to read WP:NPOV as it was redirecting to a page about novels) JoBrodie (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JoBrodie, you inadvertently illustrate precisely why this sort of category is so disgracefully POV. You write of Jenny McCarthy that her views on this would seem to be unambiguously quackish and pseudoscientific, without citing a single RS applying those labels to her, let alone applying the WP:WEIGHT test. Instead, you make your own subjective judgement to justify the use of these pejorative labels.
This is an NPOV encyclopedia. If you want to go around casting your own value judgements and pushing your own POV, start your own website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other celebs such also ascribe to antivaccination, some with the fear they may cause autism [1]; does that mean they are quackish as well? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way have I managed to flout anything? I've created Category:Autism quackery and applied it to pages where the subject matter relates to unevidenced assertions about autism. (I haven't even managed to apply it to Jenny McCarthy as it was reverted anyway). I can see that Category:Quacks is similarly used (though only to people, not treatments etc) and am puzzled that it's managed to achieve that without the same charge of 'personal views' being applied. Given that it's still in place, and pretty similar to this new category, I don't understand why said new category would cause any additional problems. CEASE therapy is potentially harmful nonsense offered as a treatment for autism without evidence, it is also criticised by several regulatory bodies in the UK - it is Autism quackery. If the worst that can be said about the category is its name then I'm happy for it to be changed to Category:Autism pseudoscience although I see that that may also be considered as being pejorative (but again, why not for Category:Quacks?) Regarding WP:WEIGHT, it's an incorrect view that vaccination causes autism (there is an entire page on the MMR vaccine controversy), it would certainly be a minority view among scientists and doctors. Incidentally that page has been labelled with categories that reference fraud, scandals and misconduct so I'm left scratching my head a bit as to why 'my' category is problematic when there are similar already in use and those ones that might be considered as being much more pejorative. Is it that a page or reference should specifically say 'pseudoscience' or 'quack/quackery' before that label can be applied, so if someone hasn't said that about a topic or person then that category can't be applied? JoBrodie (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2019 (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:Shinty stadiums

[edit]
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:Shinty venues, without prejudice to a fresh nomination for renaming to Category:Shinty venues in Scotland as suggested later in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Shinty is an amateur, community-based sport and the grounds are largely undeveloped fields, so "stadiums" seems an ill-fitting description. The change would give consistency with the parent category, Category:Sports venues in Scotland. Jellyman (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (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.

Bridges by city

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 8#Bridges by city

Churches by city (United States)

[edit]
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 all per nom, and per other recent similar CfDs. ~ Rob13Talk 03:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the above categories only contain 1 article and/or 1 subcategory. See also this earlier nomination which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
The nom offers no explanation of why there there might not be more notable churches in these cities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SMALLCAT provides two contradictory criteria, in the second line it says "no realistic potential for growth" which is in my view considerably more relaxing than "by their very definition". The "by their very definition" clause can nearly always be appealed to and if we would literally stick to it it would in practice imply that we would abolish WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: are you saying that you have actually made an assessment of the "realistic potential for growth" of each of the nominated categories?
If you had done so, I would have expected such research to be mentioned in the nomination, rather than simply citing current size. But if you have done such an assessment, maybe you could explain how it was done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Marcocapelle, but I don't believe that you actually made any meaningful evaluation of the potential for growth. It seems to me to be v clear that your selection was indeed based on the rationale in your nomination, viz the current size of the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two factors: a) New England has a quality local newspapers; b) in a society with high levels of church-going, local papers are likely to give significant coverage to churches.
But note that the onus is on the nominator to offer evidence in support of their proposal. You nominated 18 categories without a valid rationale, then switched post-facto to a different rationale ("no realistic potential for growth") for which you have offered zero evidence. You have made a wholly unevidenced proposition and are now demanding that others have watertight evidence to counter that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Marcocapelle, you offer no evidence, no attempt to research the actual number of churches in these hypothetical comparators ... but I'm the one being accsued of WP:ILIKEIT? Wow! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No evidence has been adduced that the nominated towns contain numbers of notable churches that are not in the nominated categories. In the absence of such evidence, it's safe to say that no such articles exist. Instead, the nominator has been invited to engage in crystal ball gazing. That is not the job of the nominator. A lot of speculative evidence has been presented as to why future articles on churches in these towns might be created at some future date. This is not evidence, it is just WP:Synthesis and should be ignored. Let's just deal with the facts in front of please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the facts in front of us are the nominator made this nomination on the basis of a misrepresentation of a long-established guideline, and subsequently changed his position to one for which he has offered no evidence.
The test per WP:SMALLCAT is not whether the articles currently exist; it is whether "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
The onus is on the nominator to provide the evidence in support of their proposed change: in this case, that would be evidence that there are unlikely to be more notable churches.
No such evidence has been provided ... and it is not the responsibility of others to do the homework which the nominator has chosen not to do.
It takes only a few moments to chuck a list of categories at CFD, but he assessment can take a lot longer. It is completely unreasonable to expect others to put in the research time which the nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"misrepresentation"? What happened to good Faith? Shame on BHG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "The onus is on the nominator to provide the evidence in support of their proposed change." I respectfully disagree on the burden here: categories are created all the time by well-intentioned editors who provide no evidence in support of their new category. The categories nominated here don't seem to aid navigation now and don't seem likely to in the foreseeable future from my perspective. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - all these categories contain a large category within them, so working as container categories these work just fine. As BorwnHairedGirl mentioned above the usage of WP:SMALLCAT is not really applicable here. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge The first two categories for example only contain 3 entries each. The vast majority of church buildings are not notable, so it is unlikely we will see growth of these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2019 (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:Space program(me) of Malaysia

[edit]
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: no consensus per the larger issues in this category scheme. See the exchange involving Nyttend/Grutness below. ~ Rob13Talk 03:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We appear to have both Category:Space program of Malaysia and Category:Space programme of Malaysia. One of them is clearly a duplicate. My gut feeling is that the British spelling will be correct for Malaysia (i.e., keep "programme", and soft redirect "program"), but I bow to any advice from Malaysian editors. Grutness...wha? 09:31, 6 January 2019 (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:Space program of Ireland

[edit]
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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Identical rationale to the South African category below. Grutness...wha? 09:27, 6 January 2019 (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:Space program of South Africa

[edit]
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: no consensus per the larger issues in this category scheme. See the exchange involving Nyttend/Grutness below. ~ Rob13Talk 03:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: South Africa uses Commonwealth English, and the South African government, the South African Agency for Science and Technology Advancement, the Aeronautical Society of South Africa, and the South African National Space Agency all use the spelling "programme". Grutness...wha? 09:25, 6 January 2019 (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:Articles created via the Article Wizard

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, along with all the subcatgories. 2nd nomination, but I think after nearly five years it is time to revisit this category. What good does it do to have over 41 thousand pages (and not just Articles; this cat. is a misnomer, as pages from the Draft, User, User Talk, etc. spaces get included) sitting in this category, and many more into its sub categories? What does it matter where an article came from? The previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 4#Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard; as one editor pointed out there, once the Draft namespace is up and running, this category would not be necessary. That time has come. Related categories Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard and Category:Unreviewed new articles ceased being populated (via template) and thus were deleted back in November. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6&oldid=1126715896"