< January 26	January 28 >

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Is this category really Wikipedia class? It just shows roller coasters that are Batman-themed. There are so many out there, the theme could be changed, and the category is just too specific. I say delete. -- CPGACoast ( talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment It looks like Category:Batman amusement rides actually includes a lot of articles (15) -- who knew? Category:Superman amusement rides also exists & has fewer, only 6 articles. My tendency is to say this is better as a list, but I'm concerned about the Category:Batman parent tree, which will be flooded with 15 amusement ride articles. But do we want to categorize based on fictional allusion? There's nothing inherent to these rides about Batman; it's all décor. The Superman & Batman sections stick out in Category:Amusement rides, which is otherwise about types of rides, ride makers, and ride lists. Hmm. Still thinking...-- Lquilter ( talk) 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment the same could be added for all sorts of casino slot machines based on themes as well. If categorization of various things by licensing is appropriate, we can expect proliferization of these things, so that we'll get all the various lunch boxes, t-shirts, shoes, caps, toys, etc. all based on various characters or families of characters to get placed into various merchandising categories. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this is no different from the various "films about" categories we've deleted. I imaghine there has to be at least one article that's about ancillary projects that are about Batman in which a list of these rides can be included. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus, and a sad face for the loss of Snocrates.  :( Kbdank71 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:NUS presidents to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Using acronyms in titles is deprecated, especially when the acronym has multiple uses - within student movements in the English speaking world alone, " NUS" can mean the UK, Australian or ex Canadian national unions. Then there's the National University of Singapore and many others. The article on NUS UK is at National Union of Students of the United Kingdom but I'm not sure if that would be too long for a category title. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete in favor of the list in the main article. I have trouble seeing being president of a coalition of student governments as so defining as to rise to the level of categorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Presidents of the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom (a mouthful but there is already Category:National Union of Students of the United Kingdom). I see this as clearly defining - any competent biography of Jack Straw would include his presidency of the NUS. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete not defining. Roundhouse's argument is a straw man: any competent biography of Jack Straw would have his marital status and list of his progeny, but we don't have Category:Married people, and Category:People with children, as the bio would have some of the unsavory activities of his relatives but we don't have categories for people who are relatives of various sorts of offenders.... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Carlos and Otto. A list already exists and it's non-defining. Snocrates 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• The present NUS president is Gemma Tumelty and you will see from a google search that the post-holder is notable per se and it is most certainly defining. Eg The Guardian. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 10:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Otto4711 and Carlossuarez46. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Presidents of the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom per Roundhouse (and remove any from other countries). This is historically a classic stepping-stone for British politicians, the left-wing equivalent of Category:Presidents of the Oxford Union, which has a category. Even now all incumbents get good national tv exposure etc. It is certainly defining for Jack Straw, Sue Slipman, David Aaronovitch and others. I note all the deleters (except ? for the enigmatic Snocrates, are US, so I'm afraid you'll just have to take Roundhouse's & my word on this.) Note - Snocrates says he is leaving us (see his talk)- we'll all miss him here I'm sure! Johnbod ( talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Johnbod - I'd expect a two-line summary of the careers of any of them - with the probably exception of Jack Straw - to mention their presidency of the NUS. I'd consider it a defining feature. Warofdreams talk 01:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename We have a category for leaders of trade unions, so such a status is clearly defining. LinaMishima ( talk) 01:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Suggest deletion of Category:As Told By Ginger - Unlikely to be populated. WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - currently contains only the "List of episodes"; even adding the actual show article would make it only two, both of which are cross-linked. No category necessary. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Halls of fame inductees to Category:Halls of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Merge - obvious duplicate categories. The parent is Category:Halls of fame but the subcats all capitalize "Fame" as part of the formal names of the Halls. I have no strong opinion about which is kept but we only need one. There are also a number of duplicated subcats (e.g. Category:Cowboy Halls of Fame and Category:Cowboy halls of fame) that present a slightly different issue of capitalization. I can add them to this nomination if y'all think the discussion is similar enough to do them all together. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I nominated some of these for speedy renaming from the use of caps to the ones using lowercase. (When the category refers to a "hall of fame" or "halls of fame" in the general sense, it is not a proper noun and no caps is needed.) The new ones have been created but the old ones have not been deleted yet via the speedy process. I expect they will be deleted soon; the process is not so "speedy". Snocrates 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Ah. OK, that's good, then forget about that last bit. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge. It's a common noun phrase, so "Fame" shouldn't be capitalized.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge per above. The word fame only becomes capitalised when used as part of the title of a specific hall of fame, not for halls of fame as a general term. Grutness... wha? 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete coincidence by name. Many halls of fame are purely an honor and no physical hall exists, and the guidelines as to how one gets in differs decidedly by each hall. What's left is a coincidence of name. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Rockabilly Hall of Fame to Category:Rockabilly Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match other inductees categories. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom for consistency. Snocrates 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment the article on this calls them "members". Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor to Category:International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor inductees

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match other inductees categories. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom for consistency. Snocrates 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Grammy Hall of Fame Awards to Category:Grammy Hall of Fame Award recipients

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the list articles for the recipients, including List of Grammy Hall of Fame Award recipients A-D. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate and Turkish Beyliks to Category:Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and Turkish beyliks

Nominator's rationale: Category ought to be renamed to match the Template:Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and Turkish beyliks and the lead article for this categoty, Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. Aramgar ( talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame to Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match similar categories. Or in the alternative, delete as a non-defining award or honor given by a magazine. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete as overcategorization by non-defining award that is the equivalent of a published list. (How's that for layering on the reasons?) If not deleted, then rename as Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees. -- Lquilter ( talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Lquilter. Not quite the same as other "halls of fame" categories. Snocrates 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete OCAT by award, we don't categorize all magazines' best of award winners. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was Keep nomination withdrawn + overwhelming consensus to keep. — Scien tizzle 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Pseudoscience ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing an article as pseudoscience is asserting the POV that the subject of the article is pseudoscience, even when that categorization is disputed. WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable, forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize an article as such when that is disputed. As per WP:CATEGORY: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

---

I can see that the arbCom decision on this subject, already provides substantial guidance on how to address categorization of articles that are currently included in this category, meaning that deletion may not be the best option. Nonetheless, each and every article in this category will need to be evaluated in the context of these arbcom decisions: (a) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Obvious_pseudoscience; (b) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Questionable_science; and (c) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. I move to withdraw this CfD, as nom in the context of this proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

---

• Delete as nom, and move all members of this category to List of pseudoscientific theories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. [ Same as last time really], a basic misunderstanding of category pseudoscience. Jefffire ( talk) 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Care to enlighten me on my misunderstading? It would be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Follow the link, we've been down this path before. Jefffire ( talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I did follow the link, but my arguments are not being addressed by you or any of the people commenting for "keep". All I see are accusations of bad faith, that in itself looks as bad faith in itsef. Categories have a place in Wikipedia, and so do lists. My argument is to use lists as suggested in WP:CATEGORY. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The list is useful for inclusion of the "softer" and more uncertain cases, along with the clearcut cases. The category is still useful for the clearcut cases, like homeopathy. We need both a list and a category. The category should be reserved for obvious cases, as determined by the ArbCom in the first two of their four groupings. See: WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience & Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. Nominator also close to violating WP:POINT with this nomination. Pseudoscience is defined and a well-understood concept used in introductory science classes. Claiming it is a POV is like claiming that labeling something a planet is a POV since some people believe the Earth isn't a planet. If this rationale flies, what's to prevent us from deleting Category:Planets to appease the fringe beliefs of those who maintain modern geocentrism? The entire rationale is flawed and specious. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Good faith nomination, though I still say keep. Pseudoscience has a definition, but whether it applies to a topic is what generates the POV. In your example, planet isn't POV, but categorizing Pluto under Category:Planets would be. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Well, it's a bad faith nomination because Jossi made this after being involved at Talk:Homeopathy with a rather protracted discussion about whether there was enough evidence that homeopathy was pseudoscience to so-categorize it. Instead of dealing with the fact that it is often named as a classic pseudoscience in many sources, Jossi decided to place the entire category up for deletion. Secondly, your point about Pluto is exactly why this nomination deserves to go down in flames. Imagine someone arguing over the classification of Pluto and then having the administrator go in and nominate Category:Planets for deletion with the rationale: Categorizing an article as a planet is asserting the POV that the subject of the article is a planet, even when that categorization is disputed. WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable, forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize an article as such when that is disputed. As per WP:CATEGORY: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You can claim "bad faith" nomination all you want. The poimnt I made at Homeopathy applies to all similar articles, and for the same reasons as stated in the nom. You may disagree with me, and I respect that, but I do not accept your accusations of bad faith. You need to learn to agree to disagree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep this nomination appears to be an attempt to get around a growing informed consensus on homeopathy by taking the debate to another forum. Almost every other article within the category clearly belongs there. This makes it a bad faith nomination. The category title allows for a well-defined membership critera, and the category purpose is to allow for topics related to the understanding of pseudoscience, so a list cannot replace the entire category. LinaMishima ( talk) 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There are many clearly defined and widely accepted psuedosciences and therefore it warrants a category. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

*Keep Categories in MediaWiki are a technical device used for relating information as much as they are for organizing information. In other words, they're just as much folksonomy as they are taxonomy. Without them, users must rely on internal wiki links and searches to find related information, ignoring the enormous benefits "tagging" allows. If reliable sources in an article demonstrate that a topic is related to other topics of the same category, it should be included. This particular "tag" is useful to readers in that way. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Though I'm saying keep, it should definitely be monitored and cleaned from time to time to prevent it's misuse. Sometimes purely religious articles end up in there, wrongly. --

Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Out of curiosity, can you give me some examples? LinaMishima ( talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Looking at how it is currently used, we have New Age in there which then includes stuff like Angel. This is nonsense because these things are not sciences, pseudo or otherwise. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I see the problem with New Age, however - a lot of stuff around it talks about 'forces' and 'energy' and some authors then tried to tie in Quantum Physics to form a basis for the spirituality. I agree that the inclusion in the category feels odd, however, but that's nothing some more vigorous rules would not deal with. LinaMishima ( talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
        • It used to contain things like reincarnation, prana, and qi. The first being solely religious and the last two referring to a concept of a "spiritual energy" that predates modern science. That goes to what you were saying about the "forces" and "energies". They're not related to science. They're spiritual concepts that predate science. Some of the New Age ones are iffy because they don't make any claims regarding science. List of occultists has nothing to do with science. Some forms of divination (which has been tagged) have nothing to do with science, or claims of science. Astrology, sure, because it makes pseudoscientific statements about planetary influences. Tarot (also tagged) doesn't make statements related to science. The White Goddess isn't related to science. Spiritualism (religious movement) isn't related to science. There seems to be a tendency to equate claims that one can be skeptical about as being pseudoscientific claims, whether the claim purports to be scientific or not. One that caught my eye as wrong that may have been tagged by accident is lucid dreaming. While it's true that before the 1980s lucid dreaming was a topic among paranormal researchers, it was subsequently proved to exist, in a lab, by reputable scientists. Now it's an accepted scientific topic, and not pseudoscience. I don't think the category needs to be deleted, but it's certainly prone to misuse. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
          • More rules would be creepy. We already have NPOV which says clearly We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation. And if twaddle about forces and energy qualify, shall I add Star Wars and Star Trek which are notorious for their bad science? Colonel Warden ( talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
            • There's a difference between fiction and misappropriation. LinaMishima ( talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Point followed. The category simply needs more stringent enforcing of its scope, of what may be covered by it (i.e. only things that make a claim to be scientific in basis). We find similar creeping in of entries for all categories, I've noticed LinaMishima ( talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
            • Good points. Definitely needs policing and only subjects that are falsifiable and/or make scientific claims should be included. BTW, I parse the ArbCom decision's four categories here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Misunderstanding_of_two_very_different_matters . -- Fyslee / talk 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is just being used as an empty pejorative which is not NPOV. One might as well have a category of Heretical or Stupid. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep: per WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience & Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, this category is not a WP:NPOV violation. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Valid category. Of course the true believers of fringe and pseudoscience topics will object to their pet theories, etc, will object and dispute the categorization - but that is no reason to delete the category. The comments made by the nom on Talk:Homeopathy just prior to this delete nomination seem highly pointy. Vsmith ( talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep but clarify its purpose. I had hoped that an additional CfD may help bring some clarification regarding the oft-quoted ArbCom decision. Currently, here is the description of the category:

This category comprises articles pertaining to pseudoscience. This includes:

• individuals (or organizations) that are notably associated with practicing or espousing pseudoscience — regardless of the merits of these associations
• individuals (or organizations) that are notably opposed to pseudoscience
• fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects
• subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another

(Note that some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community.)

It seems that the stated purpose of the category is inconsistent with the ArbCom decision, and I think further discussion is warranted. But the category is obviously useful, however controversial it may be. Silly rabbit ( talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Agree. Those criteria seem incompatible with WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience as well, which provides guidelines based on the ArbCom decision. It puts the criteria for what should be "categorized" as pseudoscience as those topics which are "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Many of the topics included probably fail that criteria. If this CfD fails, someone should do an RfC to create a better criteria that's compatible with the ArbCom decision. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 03:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rework Keep per ArbCom decision and usefulness, but reword criteria for inclusion to reflect that decision, and remove any entry that doesn't meet that criteria. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Deleting a whole category because of a disagreement about whether one subject (in this case homeopathy) should be included is a gross violation of POINT, made by an irritated admin who is in over their head, who is being far from neutral, is being partial, and is favoring fringe POV pushers who hate their pet pseudosciences being called by their right name.

WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience & Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience allow the use of this category, so this admin is going against an ArbCom decision, which stated:

Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.

Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Homeopathy is an obvious pseudoscience, but even if one disputes that, it certainly is still generally considered a pseudoscience. Nothing better than that, and therefore "may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification," or at least "may be categorized as pseudoscience."

FYI, I parse the ArbCom decision's four categories here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Misunderstanding_of_two_very_different_matters .

This Cfd is also a disruptive repetition of old attempts. Deletion of real concepts does not remove them from the real world, and Wikipedia reflects the real world. I have advised this admin (on the homeopathy talk page) to sticking to refereeing the article, which needs to be done, but this move:

1. reveals great ignorance of the subject,
2. reveals ignorance of policy,
3. is a pretty serious disruption,
4. a violation of POINT, and
5. forum shopping,

so further action may need to be taken. -- Fyslee / talk 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

made by an irritated admin who is in over their head, who is being far from neutral, is being partial, and is favoring fringe POV pushers who hate their pet pseudosciences being called by their right name - I think that you may need to consider to take that disparagement back. It simply reflects very poorly on you and shows an amazing degree of bad faith on your part. If at all, the one that seems irritated is nobody but you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Strong delete. This category, per the ArbCom on pseudoscience, can properly be applied to obvious pseudoscience such as Time cube, and to subjects like Astrology, where a scientific consensus that the subject is pseudoscience has been stated by a truly representative scientific body.

Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

[1]

However, in most cases of its non-obvious application on WP, this is not the case- there is no source which represents science in general which calls the subject pseudoscience. Rather, it is the judgment of the editors, and perhaps an article or two. I once applied the category to I think the James Randi Educational Foundation article. That edit was promptly reverted. Why? Because pseudoscience is a derogatory term, and the category is used exclusively to deprecate the subject it's applied to.

The cat can be applied to obvious pseudoscience, but here we have another problem: who decides "obvious?" That is an editorial decision, and had often be mis-applied, for instance to Parapsychology.

There are only a few non-obvious cases, quite a few obvious cases, and a lot, such as James Randi, to which it can be applied in its congratulatory manner:

individuals (or organizations) that are notably opposed to pseudoscience

[2]

Thus, the category cannot be properly applied in WP because it is universally seen as deprecation, because "obvious pseudoscience" is too difficult for editors to consistently get right, and because it can't be applied in a good sense. And if it were changed so it could only be applied only for deprecation (and also only applied properly), there would still be the problem of when it is "obvious," and of easy mis-application. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep and support nom's revised statement at head. Snocrates 09:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep it clean i.e. strongly enforce WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience on this category. -- Achillu ( talk) 12:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Arbcom - please close now nom withdrawn Johnbod ( talk) 13:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Strongly. Delete Not sure this is still open , but will add anyway .... Although, I could care less about the topics included, I believe it to be not encyclopedic to use a value ladened term as a collecting place for topics selectively chosen because they do not seem at this point in time fit within the boundaries of mainstream science. Einstein's ideas in the years before they were proven could have been called pseudoscience, not an apt term for what he theorized. The term is cliche driven, "pigeon holes" knowledge, and represents a kind of lazy thinking as any "pigeon hole" thinking does. Choosing a terminology and selecting topics to fit under that term is also it seems, OR in the biggest sense, since the entire article becomes OR.( olive ( talk) 16:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

As per Nealparr's pertinent comment concerning organization of material: As a place to organize material not yet mainstream science(if ever, isn't the point)with a heading that is not value ladened or cliché ridden and clearly reflects the page as organizational. This would be different than a standard WP article.( olive ( talk) 16:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

• Strongly. Delete I agree that some subjects can reasonably be labeled as pseudoscience, but the guidelines are not enforced and it has become an officially sanctioned insult. It is applied to entire groups, organizations and field of study when it is defined as applying to "a theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation."

If you want a stable Wikipedia, then it is time to begin taking some of the rocks away from editors who think it is their duty to throw rocks. Tom Butler ( talk) 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Crikey. Get over it, the world has crackpots. Maybe we should name it Category:Crackpot belief systems or Category:High weirdness. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

• Comment As a scientific experiment, I have just added an obvious omission to the category: Marxism. I can produce lots of good support for this and that article already references an example: Marxism As Pseudo-science, by Ernest Van Den Haag. My hypothesis is that this tag will not be tolerated for long because it is so pejorative and any attempt to maintain it will result in an edit war. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I reverted specifically because you are making a WP:POINT. Knock it off. — Scien tizzle 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Category:Museums in Atami, Shizuoka
• Category:Museums in Yokohama
• Category:Museums in Tsukuba, Ibaraki
• Category:Museums in Tokorozawa, Saitama
• Category:Museums in Sendai
• Category:Museums in Saitama, Saitama
• Category:Museums in Osaka
• Category:Museums in Nara, Nara
• Category:Museums in Nagoya
• Category:Museums in Nagasaki
• Category:Museums in Mitaka, Tokyo
• Category:Museums in Matsudo, Chiba
• Category:Museums in Kyoto
• Category:Museums in Kure, Hiroshima
• Category:Museums in Kurashiki, Okayama
• Category:Museums in Kitakyushu
• Category:Museums in Inuyama, Aichi
• Category:Museums in Ikeda, Osaka
• Category:Museums in Hiroshima
• Category:Museums in Dazaifu, Fukuoka
• Category:Museums in Bizen, Okayama

Merge: I want to merge all of these cats to Category:Museums in Japan. The majority of these cats have only one or two members. The few with more can do fine merged. I am only keeping Category:Museums in Tokyo as it has the most members. Basically, most of the cats have very few articles in them and are unneeded. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom Gatoclass ( talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I looked at about half of these categories and indeed, they were mostly 1-5 articles in each, and it would be fine, in my view, from the point of view of Category:Museums in Japan to merge. But, it seems to me that each of these current categories could have the relevant city category, and this would be a useful subcategory there. -- Lquilter ( talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose bulk merge. If this merge is done, then it needs to be a multiple upmerge to
  1. The prefect or city category (if no attractions category or do we create the attractions category in that case?)
  2. Visitor attractions category by city or prefect
  3. Museums in Japan

  Some of these categories are large enough to merit retention. Also, these are all a part of a series, so unless we have some that will only ever contain one entry, I don't see how we can support a merge. I'd suggest rethinking this and getting all of the subcats for the current entries consistent. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  • [Museums in City] can be removed, and [Museums in Japan] and [Attractions in City] or [City] can be added. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. I think even the small categories could be bigger in time. Also per Lquilter they serve as subcategories of [Museums by city] and [xxxxx Prefecture] so simple upmerge may not be entirely helpful to readers. Llamasharmafarmerdrama ( talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, they could be bigger in time, but how much? They'd go from one article to maybe four. Still small categories. To John below, we could keep Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as they are the next biggest, but they are still small, and the others are smaller. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep only Hiroshima (10), Kyoto (5), Osaka (3), Nagasaki (6). Multiple upmerge to Visitors attractions, city, museums in Japan etc for the rest. Johnbod ( talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Why not also keep Yokohama which has other museums that will get articles at some point? The fact that museums exist without articles is a reason to keep these as a series. The articles will come since most museums are going to be notable. Why undo the category only to recreate it later? Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Since the Yokohama Curry Museum has in fact closed down, there is only 1 current museum there. I don't have strong views, but categories like this are very easy to recreate. I'm not so sure every museum will get an article in the foreseeable, plus museum closures are I believe rather common in Japan. Johnbod ( talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Agree. Let's not delete big categories. -- Deerstop ( talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • So are you suggesting that we ignore being part of a series which is an objective criteria in favor of being big which is completely subjective? Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Well, let's discuss what is "big"?) -- Deerstop ( talk) 13:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It is not a case of objective vs subjective criteria. I think it is clear that not every city deserves a "Museums in ... " category, just as not every person deserves an eponymous one. So this is not a "wider scheme" as described by WP:OCAT, and size is therefore a perfectly valid criterion. Johnbod ( talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Well, the question is being posed exactly that way. Big is OK and part of a series is to be ignored. If it is part of a series, then size does not matter, clearly a size of one is the minimum for albums by. True not every city may deserve a category, but that can not be discussed fairly in a group nomination. I suspect that most cites listed here have more then three museums which seems to define big for the purpose of keeping the category. No harm is done by keeping. Extra work is avoided by researching which of these is not likely to be more then one and then nominating only those. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I think I would rather have no "Museums by city" categories at all than to have a sub-category for every city with a museum - think of the nightmare that would cause in the US. This was discussed in a nomination not too long ago. Fortunately we don't need to make that choice. If we say there is no wider scheme then there is none, but this should be consistent globally. Look how few other Museum by city categories there are. Johnbod ( talk) 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Then maybe the compromise is to group by prefecture for Japan and have the city categories as needed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename (and merge, as necessary for Saitama/Okayama/etc) to Museums in XYZ Prefecture per the rest of the X in Japan categories. I believe that in most cases, categorizing buildings, people, mountains, etc by city (in any country) is not necessary, and, since the proper prefectural categories for museums are not set up yet, this is a good opportunity to create them. Neier ( talk) 12:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I think I agree with Neier: I oppose a bulk merger into a single nationwide category, but I support merger to the prefecture level. However, as an exception, Tokyo (a prefecture) has a tremendous concentration of museums in the 23 special wards, and we might break Tokyo into one category for the 23 special wards and one the rest of Tokyo (total of two). Another possibility is by region, e.g. Museums in Kansai; this time, I'd keep one category for Tokyo as an exception. Fg2 ( talk) 12:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd support (per Vegas etc) merger to prefectures (to match US states) even though it will hardly reduce the number of small categories - if it was just me I wouldn't bother. I think the major cities should remain in city categories to match the ROW. Tokyo city would then also be a sub-cat of Tokyo prefecture, solving Fg2's problem. Johnbod ( talk) 12:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Why not do it by Island? Kyushu, Honshu, Hokkaido and Shikoku instead of prefecture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkenobi18 ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Because few, if any, other Japanese category trees are organized that way. Johnbod ( talk) 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep as is. FieldMarine ( talk) 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Saturday Night Live music to Category:Saturday Night Live

Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is capturing a fairly random assortment of SNL-related articles that include greater or lesser amounts of content related to music or musical guests. There's nothing here that warrants separate categorization and the main category is not so enormous that splitting out these few articles (some of which are there already) is warranted. Otto4711 ( talk) 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Infamous moments on SNL? An article? In music? What makes that infamous...but I digress... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Oregon Music Hall of Fame ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as non-defining/minor award or honor. Oregon Music Hall of Fame has no article. If retained, rename to Category:Oregon Music Hall of Fame inductees to match similar inductee categories. Otto4711 ( talk) 15:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom as overcategorization by award. Appears to include anybody who is anybody in music and happens to come from Oregon. Snocrates 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment It's a real award. We already have Category:Oregon musicians for anybody in music who happens to come from Oregon. Katr67 ( talk) 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename I've written an article for Oregon Music Hall of Fame, a notable statewide award. Katr67 ( talk) 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Katr67 -- You should know that "categories for discussion" uses a different standard than "articles for discussion". AFD does look at the "notability" of the subject, but CFD looks to see whether using the subject as a classification "defines" the articles it's applied to. ( WP:CAT) In general award-winner categories are considered overcategorization, and it's felt that it's better for a number of reasons if the article for the award just include a list of award-winners. Would you mind addressing your comments in light of categorization guidelines, not AFD guidelines? -- Lquilter ( talk) 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm aware they're different. I addressed notability because the nominator claimed the award was minor and had no article, which seems to be a notability issue. Thanks for linking to "overcategorization". It is the second !voter, not the nom, who brought that up. I'll gladly append the list of nominees to the article if the category is deleted. Katr67 ( talk) 02:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'd like to see some more independent sourcing for the article since much of it is sourced by the Hall's own website. That said, I would still say that this category should be listified and deleted, as a state-level HoF doesn't strike me as being categorizably defining. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Non-notable accolade. - Dudesleeper Talk 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete OCAT by nn award. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 17:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Divas to Category:Prima donnas

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to clarify that this is for opera singers and not random women (or men) that VH1 or the gays have declared to be divas (c.f. Aretha Franklin and Whitney Houston). Otto4711 ( talk) 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - "Prima donna" means something else entirely to most people. I don't think it's a very useful name. Why not just start a category called "Operatic divas"? Gatoclass ( talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I have no objection to renaming this to Category:Opera divas assuming that term is in use. The category itself cites Prima donna which is about (for the most part) the opera singers. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I might be wrong, but I don't think one has to worry about notability when naming categories. So I think "Operatic divas" or "Opera divas" would be fine. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support either suggestions. "Prima Donna" (Italian) literally means First Lady, and thus applies to the actress playing the lead part in an opera. The primary meaning is that a leading female opera singer. Wider meanings in popular use arise because such ladies have traditionally been temperamental and difficult to please. I assume that "diva" is related to the Hindi word for a goddess. Opera is in origin an Italian artform. Accordfingly, of the two possibilities I would prefer "Prima Donnas" (as nom). It may be necessary to provide a short headnote (in either case) as to its intended scope in the hope of keeping other uses off the page. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Almost - Diva is Latin for goddess; Devi is the Sanscrit etc word. Johnbod ( talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to something, anything. Johnbod ( talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Opera prima donnas or Category:Opera divas. Both "diva" and "prima donna" can be misinterpreted, but adding "opera" to either should resolve the problems. Snocrates 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Wouldn't "operatic divas" sound better? -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Either would work, but "operatic" has an alternative dictionary definition of meaning "extravagantly theatrical" or "histrionic", so it has more confusion potential, IMO. Just using "opera" probably has less chance of being misunderstood. Snocrates 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete even the best proposal thus far IMO, Category:Opera divas, has an inherent level of subjectivity probably too great for a cat. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Alumni of the Central School of Speech and Drama ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Alumni of the Webber Douglas Academy of Dramatic Art ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining. But since that hasn't a chance of passing, rename to match other Foo alumni categories. Otto4711 ( talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep per UK naming convention as in Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom (and per cfds of 25 Dec 2007 relisted at 31 Dec 2007). -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 14:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Please don't imply that the previous discussion was to keep it was clearly a no consensus close. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Which resulted in 'keep'. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 09:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

By default, not by consensus. There is a world of difference between the two. Snocrates 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I am fully aware of these distinctions, and regret any inferences that I have implied otherwise. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 09:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep as defined and do not rename as fits UK alumni category conventions. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Fitting a naming convention is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • No but it's a reason to not rename to something that doesn't fit the convention. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
      • However the nomination is to delete and not remame. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom as nondefining. Snocrates 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. After looking at the entries, I'm convinced that the graduates may be defining for the school, but I don't see a strong indication that being a graduate is defining for the individuals. If others agree that the graduates are defining for the school, then they should be listed in the school article along with the year they graduated. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• What leads you to think that, say, Antony Sher should not be in Category:Alumni of the Webber Douglas Academy of Dramatic Art? -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 10:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep per UK convention. Johnbod ( talk) 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment I am greatly troubled by recent decisions to delete (and not upmerge at all) categories such as this which are part of a wider category scheme (in this case Category:Alumni of the University of London). I have no problem with the entire parent category being discussed but picking off subcategories at random makes a nonsense of the whole structure - some editors add 'catdiffuse' tags to large categories, others diligently diffuse articles into subcats, obediently removing them from the parent cat; these subcats then get deleted at random and not even upmerged. Also the first many editors hear about this is when a bot removes a category from a watched article. This cfd process leaves much to be desired. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 11:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • All of which just substantiates the opinion of most users that in one way or another Wikipedia is a bitch. Snocrates 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees as a Performer to Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Merge - I'm unclear as to the utility of separating out inductees-as-performers from other inductees. If retained the category needs to be renamed to something like Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame performer inductees. The current name is ungrammatical and the capitalization is wrong. Otto4711 ( talk) 14:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge. The goal may be to suggest that those inducted as songwriters or promoters somehow do not belong in the same rarefied air as the performers, but that's ridiculous. Put them all in the same category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment The reason there is a seperate category is because the performer category is by far the largest, most high profile and most diverse category in the Rock and Roll hall of fame, and the process for inducting them is notably different than the other categories. When I created it, I figured that there would be some use for seperating the artists from the rest. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Should there be more subcats? Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Possibly, but the rest of the categories only have a few dozen inductees each (in one case, 6), while the performer one has 150+ -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge if needed at all, if someone is inducted as a performer, a songwriter, an arranger, a promoter, and videographer, etc. we don't need to add cat-clutter to the bio. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You clearly don't know how the process works. There are only five categories and a person can only be inducted into one of them. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Dan Brown to Category:Novels by Dan Brown

Nominator's rationale: Rename. the contents of the category are all articles about his novels except one which is about a character from one of the novels. Tim! ( talk) 12:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename- Because of category's contents, renaming would be best per proposer's idea

. -Mastrchf91- 15:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename. There are only articles likely to be created on the authors works themselves rather than the author himself. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to conform to the contents. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename for contents. Otherwise, we'd have to delete it as eponymous. Doczilla ( talk) 12:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:John H. Meier ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 11:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. The one non-bio article (about a book for which Meier wrote an afterword) can easily be linked through the main article. Otto4711 ( talk) 15:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Kbdank71 17:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Year of birth missing (living people) to Category:Year of birth missing

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Living people is a maintenance category. As such, the category is not meant to have subcategories. Merge to Category:Year of birth missing. Gilliam ( talk) 08:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think the intent behind the category is to alert users who research missing years of birth to not bother finding the date (month and day) of birth, since this is unnecessary for most living people biography articles per Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays. Thus, having this subcategory is useful for users who are researching for missing years of birth, because it allows those who want to research years of birth but not dates of birth to work from a separate category list. Snocrates 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep but for a different reason. The year of birth (the nomination) is hardly private among the notables and as for the date of birth (a straw man) reasonable minds differ. I view a biography without basic biographical data such as where and when someone was born from someone alive or in the recent past as a redflag of non-notability. If someone is notable and not from the 15th century or so, their birth data should be readily available. If not, think about whether such a person is really notable. People come to read biographies to learn something; would you trust a biography of someone by editors who cannot figure out when or where the subject was born? Go ahead and eat some of the fungi that editors have told you is safe, too; see Category:Fungi. Why keep? because some legal dudes seem to think that something to do with living people is important for their legal doings. Birth years may indicate the likelihood that someone is still living, whether their copyrighted works have lapsed into the public domain, and other such legalities that matter to lawyers. Not a big deal to editors, but either is Category:Living people either.... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Upon its creation exactly nine months ago, Category:Year of birth missing (living people) was described as a subcategory of Category:Year of birth missing [which as of that moment (May 1, 2007) contained 18,207 entries] and a Category related to [although not a subcategory of] Category:Living people. Thousands of additional entries have since been added to both of these "Year of birth missing" Categories, and it would be much more difficult to conduct the needed research on the lives attached to these names if great numbers of biographies of living individuals are commingled with equally great numbers of those who are no longer alive, including thousands from the remote past. This Category has already survived one such merge nomination (last July 17) and it may be useful to review the arguments for its existence (accessible via the link on the Category's discussion page). The page also contains an introduction to the then-newly-made Category explaining its purpose and the reason for its creation. —Roman Spinner (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Error to Category:Errors

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nom, speedy suggested by User:Vegaswikian, contested by User:Grutness and User:Snocrates. Brief discussion can be seen here -- pb30< talk> 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Split. To my eye this is a confused category containing items relating to "error science" (e.g., specific types of error such as statistical error) and actual specific errors (bugs, glitches, mistakes), each of which woukld probably be better served by a separate category, in much the same way as we have categories called "Hurricane" and "Hurricanes" for wind science and actual big blows. Grutness... wha? 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete just a collection based on the name, generally. We could just as easily add everything accidental, for all accidents are errors of some sort or another. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Extremely weak keep - "Error" is more generic and encompasses both articles about "error theory" (for lack of a better term) and articles about specific errors. I imagine that there are academics who study "error" without studying specific "errors" so the category may have some utility. If the category is deleted will I weep salty tears? No. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a category of "error science" with no prejudice to Category:Errors being created. Snocrates 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest deletion of Category:Catscratch - There is only one article in the category. Even if more were added, the category would not be substantial. WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Unlikely to become populated. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - unnecessary eponymous TV series category and per clear precedent. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Stock characters by name to Category:Stock characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge - I don't see the utility in categorizing these characters "by name" (whatever that even means) separate from other stock characters. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom; I think it purports to be a grouping of these characters with proper names, but Bimbo & Herr Pastor seem less proper names than just stock characters. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.