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.
Nominator's rationale:Listify, then Delete. This is an honorable academic award, but not defining of the winners of the award, so per WP:OCAT#Award, listifying would be preferred. The list could be watched and readily updated, while the category is difficult to police for additions and subtractions; the list can be sorted alphabetically, by year, by subject, or by any other relevant criteria, while the category can only be sorted alphabetically; the list can include relevant information, while the category will only display the title of the article. I notified the category creator. -- Lquilter (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Wikipedia:Overcategorization:Award recipients and have no big objection to deleting this category that I created. My personal viewpoint is that I find such categories useful and interesting -- if I see that somebody won the best scenic design award (for example), I do find it interesting to click on the associated category and see other people that did that. Will there always be a link to the award list in the individual articles? Otherwise, informations would be lost. Perhaps I just need to reeducate myself to think in terms of lists. OK by me to Listify and delete.--Foobarnix (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Rename to broaden scope somewhat. This would allow Category:Transphobic violence to be placed as a subcat which would simplify parenting and navigation, and align it with the current header text. Not all instances of violence against LGBT can properly be termed homophobic in nature, some are due to failure to conflrm with gender or sexuality norms in other fashions. The 'victims' category has LGBT in the title so this one should be rescoped to match that one. Additionally as Drowninginlimbo pointed out, this rename would match the head article for the category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)| Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sounds like a good idea, would allow for more inclusions and issues that affect all groups within the banner. I'd recommend the title 'Violence against LGBT people' rather than 'Anti-LGBT violence' as: 1) there is an article Violence against LGBT people, and 2) Anti-LGBT Violence reads a little clumsily --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. As the creator of the category, I should have made it more inclusive to start with. Go ahead and rename. Orpheus (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename moves away from having to ascertain clearly the full motivation of those involved. Many cases of violence are complex, and the motivation behind them are often disputed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2014 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Category:Feminist critics of BDSM seems to fail WP:DEFINING. I looked at all of the people in this category, and only one or two articles even mentioned BDSM that I could find. Feminists have critiqued a lot of things - patriarchy, schooling, advertising, media, literature, movies, depictions of women in X, but I don't think we need this fine-grained intersection category of "What is your philosophy + what did you critique". Most of the contents are people who contributed an essay to Against Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis, but as Feminist views on BDSM points out, feminist views on BDSM cover the gamut, and I don't think we should create Category:Feminist supporters of BDSM to balance this one; instead it's better to just delete. The other two, e.g Category:Critics of BDSM and Category:Criticism of BDSM are containers that have no other useful contents. The only useful cat worth keeping IMHO is Category:Feminism and BDSM and it's sub Category:Feminist criticism of BDSM which has a few articles on the relationship of feminism to BDSM and is already well parented, so we can delete without need to merge. Overall, I don't think this is useful as a defining sub-philosophy-of-feminists cat, because a given feminist's critique of BDSM is usually not a defining feature of their philosophy or outlook in the way radical feminism or womanism might be.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but adjust -- I have to investigate to find out that BDSM stands for Bondage, Dominance, Sadism and Masochism. I suspect this is a well-recognised abbreviation; yet we do not like abrreviations in category names. I would suggest that the headnote needs to be altered to set out the expansion, though without renaming or changing the main article. Alternatively merge the others into Category:Criticism of BDSM. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2014 (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:Schools affiliated to Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations
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.
Keep -- While the formal affiliation may not be significant, it probably indicates that the schools are teaching pupils up to take the Council's exams. That probably does not apply to all high schools in India, as Muslim and Hindu schools will be teaching their own curriculum leading either to another exam or (possibly) no exams. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2014 (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:American city managers and Category:City attorneys
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.
So screw the South and Central Americans. Gee, how broadminded of you. The prevailing view is view clear on this issue. My proposal is the proper way to deal with this, not your counterproposal. Greg Bard (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't put it that way Greg. But yes, the South and Central Americans are just going to have to find a way to deal with the fact that we have 18,474 categories with the demonym "American", and only 6600 with "in the United States", and those mostly apply to non-people categories. Thus, if someone is screwing the other "Americans", it's certainly not me, nor will this trivial little category change make a dent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no they are not. This form is very well established all over Wikipedia (look all through the state and federal government categories). It's just a matter of getting the few inconsistent ones into line. Greg Bard (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, your abrasive manner is not conducive to collaboration. If I am to read between the lines, you seem to be suggesting that, within the tree of governmental agencies and professions, the term "In the united states" is more often used than "Americans" - which may indeed be true, even if it's not true for the rest of the tree (see Category:American people by occupation). Asserting that I'm somehow offending South Americans is a classic example of bad faith, whereas if you had said "The standard in the tree seems to be that at least for government occupations we link to the country vs the demonym", then you may have an argument that can convince others - but it has nothing to do with whether "American" is offensive (If it were, then we would simply rename all the American categories), but I think there would be little consensus for that. You also need to establish that Category:American politicians uses "in the united states" more frequently than "American", my first look suggests otherwise.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can't have it be inconsistent from one day to the next just because we operate on a consensus, and whoever shows up to vote will determine things. We have Category:Mayors of places in the United States, and a whole government category tree that operates this way. Furthermore, we have the proposal below concerning City council members which is also consistent. I realize that we have Category:American farmers, and a lot more like that. They seem to make sense and work within their category trees. All I am asking is that people use just a little bit of common sense, and see that this proposal is needed to make the government categories consistent. I can't see us proposing to switch the whole category tree to "American x," because we have already deliberated on that issue in so many cases. So I propose do the right thing and support this common sense proposal I have made here. Greg Bard (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Bard's complaint that we shouldn't use "American" to mean of U.S. nationality is linguistically incorrect (in English, "American" is not equivalent to "European" in describing the people of a continent...or two) and long-ago decided by overwhelming consensus (hence, Category:American people), so I don't see any point to even entertaining that opinion. Nevertheless, there is a possible distinction to be made here. "American" describes the person; "in the United States" describes the office. It isn't inconceivable that a non-American could hold such a position in the U.S., and what we are targeting here would seem to be where the office is based. If I'm wrong in suggesting that, then we should just use "American X" across the board for all of these. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We consistently use "American" in connection with people as an indicator of nationality. The reason that we refer to "places in the United States" relates to the fact that places are located in a country, but we can't do the same thing for people, as people can move around.
I am somewhat sympathetic to John Pack Lambert's argument that the category can remain US-centric until it contains some city attorneys in other countries. However, since all of the current contents apparently are Americans and there are excellent reasons to put a category for American city attorneys into container categories for American lawyers and Public officials in the United States, efficiency would be best served by renaming the current category to Category:American city attorneys, then re-creating Category:City attorneys as a new container category for it. --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the office of, for instance, "Los Angeles City Manager" does not move from place to place. For articles about people who held these offices, it is completely appropriate to use "in the United States."Greg Bard (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2014 (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.
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.
That is a good question, and indeed it makes more sense to group it by admin. regions. I had not seen that the link was piped to the region, so why not. Constantine ✍ 10:07, 3 April 2014 (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:American city council members and Category:United States city councils
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.
oppose first, support second consistency would be to use American. Look at the parents, other countries use the standard demonyms. No reason is offered to not use American here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelmingly prevailing view is to use "in the United States." This is in consideration of other Americans (i.e. South and Central). We Americans aren't the only Americans using Wikipedia O.Greg Bard (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Greg, you sound like you're making sh*t up. From whence does this "prevailing" view hail, and where is it documented, and show me the evidence of same?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need only do a cursory examination of the category trees of Category:State government in the United States, as well as local, county, and federal categories to see pretty clearly that the ones that are of the "American x" form are a result of people initially forming categories without regard to style consistency issues, and that those instances are gradually being corrected. You are very late to this party, quite frankly. If it isn't already in the MOS, I would be surprised, and I only proposed it as CFR, rather than speedy, because there is very often a person like yourself who comes out of the woodwork, late to the party who wants to have the discussion all over again. It just usually takes less time this way. Usually. Greg Bard (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, again you are being unnecessarily abrasive. If I look at Category:American politicians, the demonym American seems to dominate,as well as in the rest of our occupations tree. The only place it doesn't seems to be in Category:Political office-holders in the United States, where "in the united states" seems to be more of the standard. Again, as far as I can tell, this has nothing to do whatsoever with avoiding offense to South Americans, and is more a standard derived to link these official governmental posts more directly to the specific government in which they serve vs the nationality they are. I suggest you study WP:AGF, as you are showing a distinct lack of it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first support second. We use "American" plus what ever the occupation is for almost all people categories. That this refers to the United States of America has been consistently established by multiple discussions. Next someone will attack me for singing "God Bless America" as somehow insulting to Brazilians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybesupport first, definitelysupport second, per my comment at related CFD that "American" properly describes a person, while "in the United States" properly describes an office or institution based therein. I'll go with a consensus that the first one should be "American X" if we are emphasizing the nationality of the members (for which "American" is the proper demonym) rather than just the location of the office they hold. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first, rename second as proposed. My reasoning is the same as in my comment (above) on city attorneys; and I agree with Obiwankenobi. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, city council members were office holders, so your claim that this is somehow unclear stands in need of explanation. Insofar as your examples are concerned, we have a policy, and citing the examples that are not consistent with the policy does not serve to support your position. We should be working toward consistency, and if we do not respect the policy (as this proposal does), then its basically anarchy. I haven't taken the time to propose all the categories that need to be moved because I am taking responsibility for the ones with which I am most involved. That's all anyone can reasonably expect. However, it is not reasonable or fair to me or other editors to have a consensus go against a policy like this. It makes it impossible to proceed. Do you understand where I am coming from?! 20:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is an empty category. It previously contained two articles: Imitations (album) and Join the Dots (Toy album), but these actually belong in [[Category:Heavenly Records albums]] since this was established first and currently contains some sub-cats.
However, note that the page Heavenly Records actually redirects to Heavenly Recordings, so perhaps once this category is deleted the old category of Heavenly Records albums should perhaps be renamed to Heavenly Recordings albums - either way, we only need one category to do this job, and as it stands the old one is better. Thanks. — sparklism hey!14:27, 24 March 2014 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: For the same reason Category:Pseudoscience petitions was CFDd a few weeks or so ago--namely that it serves only to pass judgment and allow one side of each of these issues to push their own points of view as though they were established facts. Now, as with everything on Wikipedia, whether I, or any other editor, thinks the things in here are pseudoscience is totally irrelevant. The fact is including things in this category (i.e. having it continue to exist at all) will serve only to piss off the supporters of, and give a sense of smug satisfaction to the detractors of, these things. The only other option I can think of is to rename it to "topics characterized as pseudoscience", in line with the existing list of a similar name. Jinkinsontalk to me01:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not convinced this is as problematic as you state. I think we should sharpen the inclusion criteria but a longer name isn't the solution. We have a head article and a well-developed category. Any dispute about contents can be handled by the question: "Is the topic at hand regularly discussed by or claimed to be by high-quality sources as and example of pseudoscience?" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - It absolutely is passing judgment, using valid methodology. This proposal is just another outrageous attempt by POV pushers and other believers to water down what is as solid as can be for their own psychological comfort. It absolutely is the proper role of Wikipedia to conspicuously identify pseudoscience. Greg Bard (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- per Obiwankenobi. The main decider as to what goes in this category should be if the majority of reliable sources describe the topic as pseudoscience, or in equivalent language. Like Jinkinson, I am not comfortable with wikipedia editors potentially placing things in this category based only upon their own opinion of the topic. Renaming the category to something slightly more neutral is an interesting middle ground. "Topics generally held to be pseudoscientific by the majority of sources" ... except more catchy obviously. Lesion (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support watering the language down at all. There is absolutely no need for it. We are able to determine what is and is not pseudoscience very clearly. The idea that we are not is the same trouble-making that the "teach the controversy" people desperately try to put forward. Greg Bard (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not always straightforward. So often when researching a topic I find a constellation of opinions and evidence in the literature, and there is no clear consensus. We should not be rash in making things seem crystal clear and aligned to a certain "camp" within the Wikipedia article, and by extension how it is categorized.
As an illustration, let's say there is a topic for which 75% of literature expresses disfavor. We would still give due weight to the 25%. It is an extension of this balanced approach to rename the category to something which makes it clear that not all sources necessarily state that every topic in the list is pseudoscience. We should also be careful about what goes in the category. Lesion (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, given the uniformly negative response to my nomination, let me try to explain again. There is, in my opinion, not a black-and-white definition of pseudoscience--there is rather a continuum ranging from things that have been thoroughly debunked scientifically (such as homeopathy), and things that have been scientifically confirmed with a very high degree of certainty (such as man-made global warming). However there are also things that fall in between, such as the Cancer Treatment Centers of America and leaky gut syndrome and polygraphs--where the evidence that they are total bullshit is less conclusive, but so is the evidence that they are as real as their promoters claim they are. It is these things in the middle that make this category problematic, as the decision as to whether they are or aren't pseudoscience as far as this cat's definition is concerned is ultimately a judgment call. Thus this category makes the false assumption that science/pseudoscience is an all-or-nothing issue. Jinkinsontalk to me18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would rephrase that as I feel the term pseudoscience has an unambiguous definition, but exactly which topics qualify as pseudoscience and which do not is often a matter of opinion. Renaming the category "Topics generally held to be pseudoscience" or something would be better imo. Lesion (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good example is Acupuncture; the effectiveness section goes on for quite a while. I'm still not sure, having read it, if it belongs in this category or not. I think Lesion has a good point, which is we don't have clear crisp inclusion criteria here. For example, if phenomena X, which is claimed to have effects A, B, and C, is shown in peer reviewed lit to have a minor effect on A, does that make X no longer pseudoscience? Also, I presume that much literature would not even use the term pseudoscience for some of the more borderline cases - they would simply say "We can't establish X or Y". Ultimately, perhaps there isn't much value in bringing all of these things together, I wonder if we might find more precise ways of categorizing these things - e.g. Category:Cancer treatments shown to be clinically ineffective and Category:Debunked historical theories without the need for a parent container for all of them. I feel like I'm going to regret ever getting involved with this discussion...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Acupuncture is the very definition of a pseudoscience. It is based on a primes that violates the very robust sciences of both biology and physics (e.g., Qi energy). If Acupuncture techniques are ever proven to provide any health benefit beyond placebo, it is almost entirely unlikely that it will be a result of manipulating Qi energies. Proving the very existence of Qi would require a completely rewriting of both physics and biology. Of course such a rewriting is always possible, however, actually claiming to have archived it prior to scientific validation is pseudoscience. A basic criterion for inclusion should at least be: Does your claim violate the laws of physics? Dkriegls(talk to me!)00:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yesterday's pseudoscience can become today's science and vice versa. Many 'scientific' findings by respected scientists were later shown to be due to very different causes than those same scientists of the canon believed. Whole books have been written on this topic. Additionally, in the case of acupuncture, some large scale reviews have found impact beyond placebo, while other studies contest this. The explanation is ultimately irrelevant - science still doesn't know why many 'western' drugs work - we just know that they do - but the mechanism can remain mysterious. I don't believe in qi energies but I'm not convinced yet that acupuncture is no better than placebo - the jury is still out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You disappoint me in taking that attitude. This is not about theories that were thought at the time to have a sound scientific basis, which was later disproved (e.g. phologiston) or scientific theories that have yet to be established but are based on accepted scientific work, but about subjects that run completely contrary to the accepted views of scientists. Whether certain "alternative therapies" such as acupuncture fall within the definition is possibly debateable: it seems that it works, but the normal explanation of why it works would seem to be pseudo-science; similarly homeopathy. However that is a question about what should be included in the category. Personally, my preference (as voted above) is to keep, but doubtful medical techniques (such as acupuncture and homeopathy) would be better purged into a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I've suggested that merging all of these as pseudoscience may not be the best ideas - perhaps we could merge some up to Category:Fringe theories, or try to split the tree in other ways. I think acupuncture and homeopathy are currently under alternative medicine, but I don't think that whole category should be in pseudoscience as that's a pretty broad statement for a broad field of medicine that does have evidence within for effectiveness of some parts. I've just read far too much about the sociology of science to believe that there is one scientific truth - truth and fact are socially constructed...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. I think that it is reasonable to have articles here, but I'm not sure that we need subcategories. What the pseudoscience is, is all that is needed. The subcategories are where the problem is. I guess that a case could be made that the list is all that we need since the list can explain and reference why something is considered as a pseudoscience. So I guess I'm supporting the delete or removal of all of the subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep The main problem I see is this: the things in this category do seem to me to be a coherent group, so if not pseudoscience, what is it to be called? One may want to argue that this or that topic does not make pretense of scientific claims or method, but as a group they do exactly that. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually any article on the list should be present. Those should all have been vented. If it's not on the list, then maybe it does not belong or needs to be added to the list if appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly useful. I not that acupuncture and some others fall outside the pseudo-science oval. Personally I would dispute some of what it puts under religious, but that is my POV and not relevant here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
another useful thread List of things once considered pseudoscience, but which aren't any more: [2]. this article also outlines the potential definitional problems here. I just wonder if there's not a better way to categorize these phenomena and beliefs? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (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.
