From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 23 May 25 >

May 24

Category:Computer and video game series templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 02:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename this category to Category:Computer and video game navigational boxes to be similar to other navigational boxes. See the sub-categories of Category:Navigational templates for other categories with similar names. -- CapitalR 22:52, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Series templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This category has been replaced by Category:Navigational templates and is no longer used by any pages. It can be safely deleted without any effect. --- CapitalR 22:23, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - TexasAndroid 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Right on the edge between no consensous and consensous for Keep, I'm going to call this one keep. Either way, it stays. - TexasAndroid 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: See detailed discussions at Category talk:Orthodox rabbis for the background to this vote. IZAK 12:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - subjective, poorly named cat to describe/disguise American Orthodox rabbis, duplicate with Religious Zionist Rabbis cat. -- Shuki 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Shuki: There is NO attempt to "describe/disguise" anything. Please assume good faith. While it is a fact that the majority of rabbis IDENTIFIED with Religious Zionism are in fact living in Israel, and often they have little connection to the world and issues relating to Modern Orthodox Judaism whose left-wing may even have positive relations with the non-Orthodox Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism movements, often seeking common ground with them on important religious issues which on the other hand the Religious Zionist rabbis in Israel generally do not get involved with nor do they approve of it as evidenced by the policies of the Religious Zionist Israeli Chief Rabbinate. IZAK 12:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Category:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis was recently nominated for deletion because it duplicates this category. - EurekaLott 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Eureka: The two categories (that are in fact sub-categories of the super-category Category:Orthodox Judaism do NOT "duplicate" each other. One movement is involved with issues relating to modernity whereas the other is more focused on Zionism. There are many Religious Zionist rabbis who do care for Modern Orthox Judaism and would not want to be IDENTIFIED with it. (In any case, by way of reason, if something is a "duplicate" one does not delete both...) IZAK 12:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Both this and the Religious Zionist Orthodox Rabbis category are ambiguous, poorly thought out and wholly unecessary. Rabbi's needn't be grouped on an individual's whimsical conception of their religiosity - of which he is likely to know nothing about other than from distorted media snippets - rather they should be grouped on hard facts (this is wikipedia) such as era in time, location (possibly) etc. Nesher 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Nesher: It is a fact that Orthodox rabbis are IDENTIFIED with various movements and ideologies within Orthodox Judaism. Your personal snipes at other editors is not called for because you have absolutely no idea about the level of their education and knowledge about this subject and how they have obtained and maintain it. It was you who first created the very ill-defined Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis which now even you agree should be deleted. Does one need a "hard fact" to place rabbis of Chabad-Lubavitch in the category of Category:Hasidic rabbis in the United States for example? Or, that well-known personalities such as Rabbi Elazar Shach and Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv belong only in Category:Haredi rabbis in Israel for example? Obviously not, because there is no doubt in anyone's mind about these things, and if there is any doubt then simply leave that personality in the general Category:Orthodox rabbis super-category. Sure to have other newer categories based on chronology is fine, but that would not detract or remove the need for the present categories. IZAK 12:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • IZAK: I'm sorry if I offended you - and I certainly wasn't directing "personal snipes" at anyone. When I said "individual's" I meant wikipedians generally, and I can assure you I had absolutely zero intention of referring to you or any other parties in this dispute. I have not and will not comment on any wikipedian's "level of their education and knowledge", whether on this or any other subject. This is simply because A) it is not right to do so - L'H, B) I know absolutely nothing about them C) לא מצאתי לגוף טוב אלא שתיקה
  • Keep because Modern Orthodox Judaism and the Religious Zionist Movement are not the same thing! Orthodox rabbis are often known by the education they received, through their writings, and by the political and religious instititutions they choose to be connected to. While Modern Orthodoxy is primarily focused on, and often seeks to reconvcile with, much broader issues relating to Modernity (yes, true, they are primarily based in the USA, but that is not the main point here), on the other hand Religious Zionism is much more focused and involved with issues relating to Zionism and the State of Israel (and yes, because they are living in Israel, this is more their focus, something that should be obvious.) As in many spheres and with many personalities, it is possible to have some overlap (which happens all the time with categorization), but that does mean that one must hide behind simplistic nomenclature. Not every Modern Orthodox rabbi is strongly or openly IDENTIFIED with Religious Zionism, and not every Religious Zionist rabbi is identified with Modern Orthodoxy, in fact some have closer ties to Haredi Judaism. Thus both categories are accurate and reflect reality. If a rabbi is known to be IDENTIFIED with more than one movement then he can be placed on more than one category. If there is any doubt or it is absolutely not clear what he is IDENTIFIED with, then he can safely remain in the Category:Orthodox rabbis super-category. See also my response/s to User:Shuki and User:Nesher above. IZAK 12:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Modern Orthodox Judaism is part and parcel of the more common main categorization of directions in Judaism. It is based on religion proper, not combined with ethnicity (only a majority is Ashkenzai) or politics (only a majority relates to the Israeli right-wing). gidonb 12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As IZAK said, Modern Orthodox Judaism is its own unique phenomenon, different from Haredi and Hasidic Judaism in terms of observance, and completely disjoint from the religio-political overtones espoused by Religious Zionsim. One can have Religious Zionist Modern Orthodox rabbis, Hasidic Zionist rabbis, and Mordern orthodox rabbis who are not Zionistic in the modern understanding of the term. The difference is real; the category is necessary. -- Avi 14:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Nesher. -- Strothra 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As per IZAK and Avi. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per IZAK and Avi. Yoninah 09:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep very important. Dovi 03:52, 1 June 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Environment by country

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Enviornment of Foo. Vegaswikian 23:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This proposal is to change the current Nationality x naming convention of Category:Environment by country sub-cats to a by country wording. As the concept of nationality specifically regards a relationship between people and a nation, I don't believe this direct sub-cat of Category:Nature should use the nationality naming convention, which we generally only apply to socio-cultural topics that are represented as products of a nation of people, like Category:Art by nationality or Category:Rock music by nationality. Additionally, the primary cat involved here has always been named Category:Environment by country, not Category:Environment by nationality.

As for "of country" or "in country", "of country" had greater support in preliminary discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories). Reading for example "Environment of the People's Republic of China" may sound more natural than the other choice, "Environment in the People's Republic of China. In regard to in country, an argument in favour is that the subject in question, the Environment, pre-dates and is irrespective of the formation of countries and borders, and so is not reliant on a state for its existance, and is therefore not "of" that state. However, it is noted that for some other subjects that pre-date states, like Category:History by country, the "of country" wording is being used.

As a final note, while natural environment is the master article for this subject, the other sub-cats of Category:Environment don't use "natural environment" in their name, so it was declined to suggest that new wording in this proposal.

-- Kurieeto 21:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I don't understand why you are making a distinction between "by country" and "by nationality". What is the difference between a nation and a country? And why are things organized by nation called Fooian X and things organized by country called X of Foo? -- JeffW 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Nationality represents a nation of people, which doesn't neccessarily follow the borders of a country. It's akin to an ethnicity. Generally only things that are cultural products of people are categorized by nationality. There are some exceptions, like this Environment category, or Category:Aircraft by country, but those are being assessed. Categorization by nationality is more difficult IMHO than by countries because countries have more fixed borders. If you have further questions I'd encourage you to bring them up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories). Kurieeto 12:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all to "of" because "in" is used for more tangible things. Golfcam 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all using "of". When it comes to countries and the like, "of X" seems more consistent than "Xish/ian/etc". Thanks for your work, Kurieeto!   David Kernow 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all using "of" Bhoeble 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom -- Bookandcoffee 19:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, using "of" per nom and Golfcam. Avenue 11:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, silly wordsmithing. Ardenn 22:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, silly wordsmithing. Ardenn 22:35, 31 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors to Category:Survivors of the Holocaust

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - TexasAndroid 13:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

If further reorganizing needs to be done, it can be done outside the scope of this rename debate. - TexasAndroid 13:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The latter category is more accurate to describe the ordeal of those who escaped from ghettos, or those who survived the Holocaust outside of Nazi concentration camps, like Roman Polański, who is currently categorized as a Nazi concentration camp survivor. The term generally used for a victim of the Holocaust is "Holocaust survivor," not "Nazi concentration camp survivor." - 67.72.98.87 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Rename to the more concise Category:Holocaust survivors, which will match the existing Category:Holocaust victims and the List of Holocaust survivors. - EurekaLott 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose (and create a separate category for people who weren't in the camps). I think it is important whether people were in the camps or not, and one of the parent categories is category:Nazi concentration camps. Golfcam 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The Holocaust is associated primarily with Jews and other ethnic minorities in Germany and conquered regions, and the concentration camps held more than ethnic minorities (Soviet prisoners of war, for example, are not generally thought of as part of the Holocaust, but they were executed in the same camps). So while I think a "Holocaust survivors" category is an excellent idea, this category should not be converted into it.-- Mike Selinker 04:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors becomes a subcategory of Category:Holocaust survivors...?  Regards, David Kernow 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If anything, this should be the other way around, for the reasons I set out below. However, as not all Holocaust survivors were in camps, and not all camp survivors are holocaust survivors, I would suggest neither should be a subcat of the other. Valiantis 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Mike Selinker. Reorganise things as appropriate. Bhoeble 12:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose A significant number of people in concentration camps were there for political reasons, not because they were Jewish. The term "holocaust" is generally not applied to political victims of the Nazis. Similarly there were people in concentration camps (Gypsies, gay people) who were targetted by the Nazis because of "who they were" rather than their politics, but for whom the term "holocaust" again is generally not used. "Holocaust" is generally reserved for the Jewish victims of Nazi terror. It's also worthwhile to distinguish between Nazi concentration camps in general and Nazi extermination camps specifically; the latter were where the Holocaust principally took place. There were many gentiles who survived concentration camps that were not extermination camps, who are concentration camp survivors but not holocaust survivors. Valiantis 14:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    Intriguing. I recognise all the above; and though I am aware of the Jewish/Hebrew word Shoah for "the Holocaust", I suppose I've always considered anyone to have perished as a result of the Nazi concentration/extermination camp system to be a victim of the Holocaust. However, if "the Holocaust" usually identifies the Jewish majority, I understand a different categorization is required. Thanks, David Kernow 01:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a touchy subject with lots of interpretations. Some people place the organized extermination of homosexuals and gypsies in the "Holocaust" domain, and that's certainly reasonable. But I think it stretches the definition to put Soviet or British soldiers in that categorization, for example, since the Nazi ethnic cleansing mandate didn't extend that far (yet). And certainly many victims of, say, Kristallnacht would consider themselves Holocaust survivors even if they didn't go to camps, and I can't imagine begrudging them that label. So I think the two categories are overlapping, but it's more accurate (and respectful) not to make them identical unless the uber-category is as broad as category:Survivors of Third Reich oppression. But boy, is that big.-- Mike Selinker 03:15, 26 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:R&B Icons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Vaguely defined category, the term "icon" is inherently non- NPOV. See Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Clearly_define_the_category. Big Smooth 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete PoV category Jaranda wat's sup 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as POV. Golfcam 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above; but, if kept, lowercase "Icons". David Kernow 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete What constitutes inclusion to this category is too vague, debatable and often controversial. Aspern 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV and redundant. -- Musicpvm 03:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Textbook definition of POV. -- FuriousFreddy 02:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but it appears the cat creator was trying to create a cat of lengendary R&B singers, R&B singers would acheived something notable in the genre of R&B. If the criteria of lengendary were better defined, this would be worth something. 216.141.226.190 02:52, 1 June 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mountains of Luxembourg to Category:Mountains and hills of Luxembourg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

According to most definitions, there aren't any mountains in Luxembourg (highest peak is 559 m altitude: way below the 610 m prominence required by Encyclopaedia Britannica). On the other hand, there are several hills that would warrant articles, and would thus populate this category (Kneiff, Gehaansbierg, Helperknapp, Haerebierg, Napoleonsgaard, Schwarzen Hiwel, Ginzebierg, etc). When it comes to another country that has few mountains and plenty of hills (the UK), this is the formula of the category name ( Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom). Bastin8 19:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

That would seem to make sense. Though it would also imply either that we recategorise it, or rename Category:Mountains of Europe to Category:Mountains and hills of Europe. The advantage of the 'mountains and hills' name, however, is that it neatly avoids the question of what constitutes a mountain and what is just a hill - as the names are not well defined. -- David Edgar 10:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree with David Edgar. Although most definitions of what makes a mountain rule out any of Luxembourg's pathethic peaks, others include them. Ordnance Survey's old definition (305 m altitude) would define most of Luxembourg as 'mountainous'. It is because it is most definitely a grey area that I believe that this category needs to include both 'mountains' and 'hills' in their titles. Thus, I would also agree with the proposal to move other such categories (Netherlands, Belgium, the Republic of Ireland, etc) to 'Mountains and hills' . Bastin 12:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How about Prominences of Luxembourg? -- JeffW 22:38, 1 June 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Homophobes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 23:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Inherently and irreparably POV. Golbez 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

i disagree, george bush is against gay marriage, the pop says that homosexuality is immoral and disturbing, the moron from the westboro baptist church parades around with signs reading wholesome slogans like God Hates Fags and Faggots will burn in hell, REPENT i dont think that is speculative or at all a POV issue. if people were added to the category simply because they were members of the republican party catholic church or muslims and whatnot that would be —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 ( talk • contribs) 11:28, May 24, 2006 (UTC).

  • Delete there is already a LGBT rights opposition cat. that covers this. 132.241.246.111 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV attack category. Osomec 19:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Osomec. The more suitable category is Category:LGBT rights opposition. Carcharoth 19:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Delete is NPoV ready for LGBTQIPPS? Dominick (TALK) 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) CHanged vote. Vandalism in progress. Dominick (TALK) 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete To call someone a Homophobe is to imply that it is a neurotic condition. I'm sure GB would vigorously deny that he is a homophobe. -- JeffW 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV categories will burn in hell. Golfcam 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Opens the door to abuse, POV pushing, and edit wars. AnnH ♫ 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not needed. Bearcat 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and ban the poster. This is insensitivity at its worst 216.141.226.190 02:55, 1 June 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Southwest Asian Charicters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Fictional Arabs, spelling, also note Iago (Aladdin) is a parrot. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

but fictional arabs, excludes turks, iranians, pakistanis, many israelis (jews, europeans, etc.) so what, hes an arabic parrott... hes not chinese or brazilian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 ( talk • contribs) 11:28, May 24, 2006 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bangladeshi soccer players to Category:Bangladeshi footballers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

To match other Category:Football (soccer) players by country. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Villians in the pokémon series to Category:Pokémon villains

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was renamed. Conscious 05:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

In general, shorter is better ... -- ProveIt (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Thank you, I've fixed the nomination as well -- ProveIt (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, since the creator already said he's all for it, I'll just go ahead ... -- ProveIt (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Automotive part retailers of the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Non-populated category, which was created by James020 ( talk · contribs) as a place to put a spam article he also created that has since been deleted. Argon233  T  C  @  ∉  16:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Oppose. There is at least one article on an automotive part retailers of the United Kingdom that is now included here. I'm suprised that I could find only one. I suspect that this category will grow over time. Vegaswikian 17:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is only a matter of time before we'll need it. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into category:Retailers of the United Kingdom. There are very few such companies of note and this is not a sensible subcategory of category:Retailers of the United Kingdom, which is better left largely undivided I think. I wouldn't want to see it grow much as pretty much all the significant UK retailers have an article. There aren't that many of them really, as most retail sectors are highly consolidated on a national basis. Osomec 19:48, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Trubetsky to Category:Trubetskoy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge/catredirect - TexasAndroid 13:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The rename is not in line with other subcats of the parent cats to this one. Renames to "XXX family" should likely be done by an umbrella nomination. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category, the latter conforms WP:RUS. Conscious 15:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC). reply

  • Merge - is there a way to prevent unintentional recreation of the other category, or putting a soft redirect in place? Also, I considered whether this was a candidate for Category:Categories named after people, but decided that this was a category about a family rather than a person. Do we have other similar categories bringing together the history of a family or dynasty over time? This one would seem a suitable candidate for such a category. Maybe Category:Dynasties? Carcharoth 20:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:House of Trubetskoy, per noble families elsewhere on Wikipedia...?   David Kernow 06:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I think it's a good idea to redirect, given that this category has been created twice. And doesn't "House of" relate to royal families only? Conscious 07:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Re royalty, I think you're probably correct; thanks. In that case:
  • Rename to Category:Trubetskoy family per other (non-royal) family categories. David Kernow 08:28, 25 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Types of wager

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (still empty after 3 weeks) -- William Allen Simpson 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused. Conscious 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC). reply

  • Comment - a probably irrelevant discussion took place over an earlier incarnation of this category here. Carcharoth 20:28, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:User cat-language

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

These two empty categories look like a joke. Conscious 15:29, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Visitor attractions in Paris

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (repopulated) -- William Allen Simpson 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Was merged with Category:Tourism in Paris. Conscious 15:17, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikify from May 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

{{ Wikify-date}} sorts article by month, not day. Conscious 15:14, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:1954 FIFA World Cup players to Category:FIFA World Cup 1954 players

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 02:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

All siblings of this category use the "FIFA World Cup XXXX players" format. Conscious 14:54, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Phi Beta Kappa

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Most entries were people who actually belong in Category:Phi Beta Kappa members. I moved those. The only other entry is the society itself, and it is redundant and unnecessary to have a category with one sole entry, the article. Avi 14:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Done. See [1] -- Avi 14:19, 26 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Transportation in Kazakhstan to Category:Transport in Kazahkstan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 02:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Kazakhstan is partly in Europe and I would have included it when we renamed all the European national categories to consistently use "transport" if it had been in category:Transport in Europe at the time. "Transport" is used for the other four former Soviet Central Asian republics, Russia and nearby South Asia. CalJW 13:49, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians who Recycle

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as the creation of the sockpuppet of a banned user. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Unused. Conscious 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC). reply

  • Has potential - if these userbox (presumably) categories are staying in any form, then this one has potential, though there may be a better one that allows people to display aspects of their lifestyle. Though I wouldn't do that, I have no objection to others doing it. Carcharoth 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep only unused because it was removed, and is also recently created. Good category. -- 70.213.207.3 05:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If kept, lowercase "Recycle". David Kernow 06:29, 25 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians who are Cool

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as the creation of the sockpuppet of a banned user. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Unused. Conscious 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC). reply

  • Delete pointless category Caveat lector 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Caveat lector. Carcharoth 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete an identical category was deleted recently... -- Cat out 23:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Golfcam 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep couldn't this be used to find editors who don't tend to overheat? -- 70.213.207.3 05:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. David Kernow 06:29, 25 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians who drink Coca-cola

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as the creation of the sockpuppet of a banned user. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Unused. Conscious 13:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC). reply

  • Delete. Pointless category. Carcharoth 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Pointless category. Golfcam 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep identifies editors who may be able to help edit Coca-cola related article content. -- 70.213.207.3 05:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 06:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If kept, should "Coca-cola" be "Coca-Cola"...?  Move all these "Wikipedians who" categories to a satellite database. David Kernow 06:29, 25 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians who support Legalization

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as the creation of the sockpuppet of a banned user. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Unused. Conscious 13:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC). reply

  • Delete - poorly defined. Carcharoth 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Carcharoth Golfcam 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this category is in use and sufficiently defined to be useful. -- 70.213.207.3 05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, otherwise rename with more focus (and/or lowercase "Legalization"). David Kernow 06:29, 25 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians who support Userboxes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as the creation of the sockpuppet of a banned user. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Unused, has potential to be used for wikipolitics. Conscious 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC). reply

  • Delete per nom. -- Master jamie 20:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete potential to be more distructive than constructive. -- Salix alba ( talk) 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I think userboxes should only reference non-Wikipedia things, other than WikiProject userboxes. Note that this category and the preceding four on this CfD page were all created by the same user: User:Who are you?. Carcharoth 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep useful if one is interested in the philosophical aspects of the ongoing userbox related events and their impact on wikipedia. -- 70.213.207.3 05:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Just move all these community categories to a satellite database. If kept, lowercase "Userboxes". David Kernow 06:29, 25 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wisconsin musicians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- William Allen Simpson 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused. Conscious 13:21, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Zoroastrian mythology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete 2 year old category, repopulate -- William Allen Simpson 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty. There is Category:Persian mythology. Conscious 13:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC). reply

  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 12:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and populate, Zoroastrian and Persian are not equivalent terms. 132.205.45.148 01:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and populate as above -- K a s h Talk | email 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, perfectly sensible. Or rename to Yazata.
With respect to "Zoroastrian and Persian are not equivalent terms", that is correct, but besides the point: All the figures in Zoroastrianism are also figures in Persian mythology, and that would be continue to the case even if "Zoroastrian mythology" (ack, spit, iggit, choke) were populated.
-- Fullstop 10:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
That would be weird. Every single mythological thing to do with Persians is also Zoroastrian? What about mythological creates that post date the Islamiziation of Persia? Or pre-Zoroastrianization of areas of Persia? Or local area mythology in regions of Persia? 132.205.93.89 21:05, 31 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Islamic India to Category:Islam in India

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Islamic rule in India. Vegaswikian 02:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The correct name of the category should be Islam in India, or something similar (maybe Islamic rule/history in India). The name of the category gives a false information, and is highly unencyclopedic. The proposed title is also consistent with the Category:Islam by country categorization. Msiev 13:02, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Historical research in India to Category:Historiography of India

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 02:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The old title is not named very well. The proposed title is more appropriate. It is also consistent with the Category:Historiography of the United States category. Msiev 12:55, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Public radio personalities to Category:American public radio personalities

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 08:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Two member category with a name that just won't do. It is an American category, and there are hundreds if not thousands of people who work on what Americans call public radio that have articles, but outside the U.S. this distinction is of little or no relevance. Therefore rename category:American public radio personalities, though I would have no objections to simply merging it into category:American radio personalities. Bhoeble 11:29, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Quackery

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 08:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

POV-ery. Delete, or at the very least rename and re-focus. I found this because the much-maligned Gillian McKeith has been entered in the category. Is it really appropriate to put biographical articles, especially regarding living people, in this cat? I note that there is not a Category:Quacks. Mais oui! 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment I would have thought Gillian McKeith stating that "foods which are orange in colour [...] have similar vibrational energies and even similar nutrient makeup." counts as quackery - so giving a child a carrot to chew on is going to be as good/health/dentally-safe as an orange lolly - please :-) David Ruben Talk 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - a well-used term used to describe pseudoscience as appllied to medicine. As such forms a useful sub-category of pseudoscience. NB disctinction of alternative medicine which just lacks robust researched evidence for claimed benefit, which makes their claims unsupported - e.g. acupuncture now seems to be gaining some positive studies re pain control. However this is very different from pseudoscience quackery which is the deliberate use of scientific terms to falsely claim proof and with intent to confuse the public with nonsense. David Ruben Talk 03:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per David Ruben. - AED 05:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The category system is too blunt an instrument for applying such a inflamatory label. Why is homeopathy not in here? Presumably because adding it would cause an instant edit war. Also cranial osteopathy is widely regarded as quackery but is only a section within osteopathy. It is hard to include a reference for a category (i.e. quote some signficant authority as saying "XXX is quackery"). This category is doomed to remain incomplete, which could mislead. Colin° Talk 08:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. This is an easy-to-define topic about which many books have been written. This is a more quickly recognizable term than "medical pseudoscience" and is not entirely congruent, as it additionally includes the many examples of deliberate deceit and fraud. Opposition to this topic comes mainly from those who support fraud, dishonesty, and ignorance. alteripse 10:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. This is a vote on the category, not the article. I have no issues with the article or a well referenced list of quacks and quack medicines. Colin° Talk 10:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete very POV name. From the Quackery article accusations of quackery are often part of polemics against one party or other, and sometimes in polemic exchanges precicly the sort of thing we wish to avoid in a category. Better names might be Category:Medicinal Fraud for those cases where there has been deliberate deception, and Category:Alternative medicine serves the purpose of locating the likes of acupuncture very well. -- Salix alba ( talk) 21:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but with heavy review of contents. Articles with ongoing controversy could be moved into category:pseudoscience instead where appropriate. Jefffire 22:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Seems a distinction between discredited people and practices of the past and current controversial people and practices is needed. If so, any suggestions for names of two such categories...?  Regards, David Kernow 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Hello. No it is to be a good article. Quackery is an old subject and an old word, and still used a lot, and lots of the literature has whole books and journals on quacks and the quackery. It is useful. It is used in scientific books to describe odd ideas and wierd things to do to patients. Because now we have lots of science in the world, people want to pretend to be science. The quack article will be a help to make distinct differences. It should be kept, it is useful. Hylas Chung 08:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Open to abuse and POV pushing. AnnH ♫ 16:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete category, per Colin. -- Steven Fruitsmaak 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, quackery is fine. — Dunc| ☺ 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - pejorative, open for abuse, entirely subjective in its application. -- Leifern 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - quackery sucks.-- Deglr6328 10:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it exists, with caveat per Jefffire. Editors should not include an article in this category without laws or legal processes condemning the subject as quackery. Wikipedia editors are not expected or allowed to make such a judgment call themelves. And if they were, they would need to be aware of the legal aspects: calling something quackery without sources to back you up mau well be libelous, an area where Wikipedians should always be extremely careful. Normal categories are almost always POV to some degree - for many categories and subjects you can find a minority who does not agree that the subject belongs in the category. The deciding factor is the size of the majority as documented in the quoted sources. But in the case of categories that amount to libel if applied incorrectly, such as quackery (or perhaps superstition when said of religion), the deciding factor is not the size of the various POVs - the deciding factor is whether or not a legal POV is available. This means that much of what is seen as quackery by editors can't be placed in the category. An alternative would be "pseudoscience" for which we have a consensus (see WP:NPOV) AvB ÷  talk 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it's infortunate that quackery is alive and well but care does need to be exercised to stop POV pushing Sophia 19:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

*Keep and rename to Category:Pseudomedicine. Quackery implies deliberate fraud, and I fear that many practitioners of what the category now contains genuinely believe that what they do will benefit their patients. Emphatically do not rename to Category:Alternative medicine, that term implies that these are accepted therapies. Dr Zak 19:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • STRONG KEEP AS IS. It would be wrong to rename to pseudomedicine. Google has a mere 4000 hits for pseudomedicine [2]-- versus 1,6 million for quackery. [3] If you look at PubMed (the official database of medical literature from the NLM)-- quackery has 1400+ articles [4] and pseudoscience a mere three page (~70 articles)! [5] If we use the article naming convention as guide ( WP:NC): Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize... --on Wikipedia, we shouldn't be inventing terms or promoting terms that are barely used. Nephron  T| C 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • A quick survey shows that "quackery" is used in a historical and social context ("Quackery in 17th century London", "Topics addressed were varied and included herbal supplements, functional foods, Native-American healing, and quackery in medicine") and in editorials. You can't just throw words at a database and count hits, you have to think about what they mean and in which context they are used. Dr Zak 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
You can't just throw words at a database and count hits, you have to think about what they mean and in which context they are used. I think the point is mute. Quackery is (1) widely used (2) well known to the public (3) defined sufficiently to be of value (4) used by medical practioners to describe ineffective treatments sold to unsuspecting patients that are often in despair (as is clear if you read stuff obtained by using the above searching strategies (Google, PubMed)). Nephron  T| C 04:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep of course. It is a subject in itself, with many reputable publications holding that title. It is not the exactly same as alternative medicine, and can be applied to conventional medicine or GPs also. Objectionable subjects should be tackled, according to NPOV guidelines. Bookmain 05:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, move category members to Category:Alternative medicine and rename to Category:Pseudomedicine. Quackery implies deliberate fraud, and I fear that many practitioners of what the two category now contain genuinely believe that what they do will benefit their patients. Category:Alternative medicine implies that these are somehow accepted therapies. Category:Pseudomedicine, on the other hand carries no judgement about wide acceptance or implication of fraud. Dr Zak 06:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: "implies deliberate fraud" - exactly my point, only I think the category should be kept for that purpose. But I'm not so sure about the general validity of the view that Quackery is a subset (or an equivalent) of Pseudomedicine and Pseudomedicine a subset (or an equivalent) of Alternative medicine. AvB ÷  talk 09:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The difference between quackery and medicine is evidence (see evidence-based medicine) and/or theoretical considerations (based on science). If there isn't evidence-- as is the case in a lot of medicine, there is some sort of physiologic reasoning. Quackery fails the test on evidence and theoretical considerations (i.e. drinking water to reduce blood pressure isn't going to work based on how the medical and scientific community ( physicians, physiologists) understand blood pressure regulation-- I dunno if someone touts drinking water as cure for high BP... but I can tell you it fails the physiology test). Alternative medicine is medicine that is outside of the purview of the (dominant) medical establishment (medical establishment being the dominant/mainstream/largest medical organization/group & its group of licencing bodies, e.g. the American Medical Association and the licencing apparatus assoc. with AMA members-- state medical boards [6]). Examples of alternative medicine practioners are chiropractors, acupuncturists-- (both of which have good evidence to suggest they work for somethings). Alternative medicine practioners are sometimes licenced... but they are licenced by different boards. [7] Alternative medicine is something completely different than quackery. Nephron  T| C 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I guess I'm questioning the wisdom of keeping Category:Quackery and Category:Alternative medicine separate. Alternative medicine denotes belief systems and practices outside conventional medicine, [8] and Quackery denotes therapies of doubtful efficacy. For practical purposes the two often overlap. One could of course clean up Category:Alternative medicine to contain only bona-fide belief systems, such as Ayurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine and Osteopathy, but where does the mess of therapies go? Dr Zak 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Alternative medicine denotes belief systems and practices outside conventional medicine, [8] and Quackery denotes therapies of doubtful efficacy. For practical purposes the two often overlap. I think it makes sense to keep them separate and I believe is possible to differentiate between the two.
I see value in some alternative medicine treatments; acupuncture and chiropractic are both proven to have benefit in RCTs-- I don't think they are quackery. The distinction between quackery and alternative medicine is in part cultural (see cultural relativism) and in part historical. The division isn't always going to be clear-cut and neat. It is like terrorism... one peoples' terrorists is another peoples's freedom fighters. The above said-- there are features that are useful to help differentiate... one is "Quacks quack!" Also, I'll point-out that quackery does not necessarily imply deliberate fraud. [9] Nephron  T| C 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Quackery as defined by QuackWatch does not necessarily imply deliberate fraud. I'm using the common meaning, see dictionaries, including Wiktionary. I've just discovered that the Quackery article also uses Barrett's definition - I'm not sure that's a good thing (a single source, however notable, does not change the meaning of a word) but have no time to delve into it. Perhaps later, or perhaps there are more sources. (But I do know calling someone a quack is libelous unless you can prove if it's true - and you may well have to prove it in court, which means it's a rather sensitive categorization. Even obvious quacks/quackery is/are not usually called quacks/quackery in the media - they know the price). AvB ÷  talk 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I feel the issue is much the same as with the List of dictators, check the talk page! The working definition there was something like "some kind of autocratic ruler that you known when you see"; it was not an accepted definition, rather editors added politicians that fit some definition of their own. If we merge the categories it will contain medical treatments (and proponents) not recognized by the medical community. If we don't, then at the very least the category will need a serious cleanup to contain only those where deliberate fraud can be proven (for example by judgement of a court of law). Even that isn't straightforward. Was Wilhelm Reich a practitioner of alternative medicine (or pseudomedicine, let's think about the name later) when he was selling orgone accumulators, or was he a quack, since he acted against an injunction of the FDA? With two categories, we are asked to make the judgement call, and per WP:NOR we are not allowed to. Dr Zak 16:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Probably repeating something proffered before and elsewhere, but I'd suggest using "Xs described as Y" – each X requiring citations where so described – as a possible template solution to controversial categories/articles such as this one (thus Practices described as quackery), List of dictators and Category:Dictators ( List of people described as dictators, Category:People described as dictators), List of cults ( List of groups described as cults), etc, etc. David Kernow 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as quarkery is a defined term at exists And put Kevin Tradeau in it :-) 216.141.226.190 03:03, 1 June 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Hangings to Category:Deaths by hanging

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 02:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Deaths by hanging. Not all hangings are fatal, but the category is only for ones that are. - Sean Curtin 02:15, 24 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_24&oldid=1110181534"