Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 22

< May 21 May 23 >

May 22

Category:Hospitals in Buriram Prvince

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Hospitals in Buriram Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty after the incorrectly categorized template was removed. Note that recreation could be possible if several articles are created. Right now the template is all red links. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Faculty by university in New Zealand

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, with no need to split – see e.g. Category:Faculty by university in France which likewise has institutions that are not all called universities. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Faculty by university in New Zealand to Category:Faculty by institution in New Zealand
Nominator's rationale: This category already contains one non-university category (Category:Universal College of Learning faculty) and I'm aware of serveral other institutions which are likely to be notable. Potentially all of the institutions listed at State_sector_organisations_in_New_Zealand#Tertiary_education_institutions have faculty. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What we would do with academics in university-like institutions that aren't allowed to call themselves universities under New Zealand law? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we parent the "by university" category to the proposed "by institution" category And then create a sister category for "by polytechnical institution"? That would then allow for the faculty of non-university major polytechs such as UCOL, UNITEC and MIT to be classified into an appropriate category. My only question with this suggestion would be, is there an appropriate tree that the proposed category used in this way to link into? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In 90% of english speaking countries these would all be universities. New Zealand is the only country to have wananga (tribally governed/led government funded tertery institutions), I believe. One possibility is just to put them all under universities :) Stuartyeates (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- If necessary, the present category should be purged of non-university tertiary institutions, which should go into a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what would the parents of this separate category be? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment I'd like to close this as "kept", but I'm hopping from one thing to another and don't have time properly to close it. I'd appreciate it if someone, anyone, even a participant, were to close it as "keep" and attribute the decision (and send any dissenters) to me. Please think of yourself like AnomieBot, which closes FFDs. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Pseudoscientific fooers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Although there was a fairly clear consensus that the current categories are not fit for purpose, editors were fairly evenly split on whether deleting or renaming would be the best option. Number 57 11:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Delete. After a lengthy discussion at Category:Advocates of pseudoscience per CFD 2014 May 1, a 3-admin panel closed the debate as a consensus to keep only a Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, as a {{container category}}. Individual articles are to be moved to a "subcategory or subcategories specifying the field or fields of pseudoscience". The other sub-categories do not include the word "pseudoscience", and while I am sure that these categories are well-intentioned, their use of the word effectively negates the outcome of the previous CFD. They should be deleted promptly, before editors waste time populating them.
I believe that these categories meet the WP:G4 criterion for speedy deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The result was "If necessary, categories may be subdivided to separate pseudoscientific advocates of a field from nonpseudoscientific investigators of that field. However, since renaming the subcategories was not discussed in the CFD we can not offer any binding decision on that point, only our personal advice." What terminology would we use to subdivide the pseudoscientific biologists like Lysenko from the nonpseudoscientific biologists? Etc? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trofim Lysenko was an odd case: a genuine biologist who diverted into pseudoscience. So he should be categorised as a biologist, in addition to any other categories. I don't know enough about the field to suggest what other terms might be appropriate, but the clear outcome of the May 1 CFD was to stop categorising individuals in categories which explicitly label them as pseudoscientists. So whatever the solution to your dilemma, this is not it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lysenko seems more like a textbook case of a pseudoscientist rather than an odd case. He's probably more well-recognized as a pseudoscientist than any other member of to-be-depopulated pseudoscientist category. So how do we follow the instructions of the close which instructs us to subdivide categories into "pseudoscientific" ones and "nonpseudoscientific" ones? What terminology do we use to subdivide the e.g. pseudoscientific biologists from the nonpseudoscientific biologists? "Pseudobiologists"? This isn't an academic question: We're supposed to be moving these members of the pseudoscientists category into subcategories right now. If categories aren't created into which to put these subjects, either they'll be left in the pseudoscientist category (which wasn't decided), or they will be removed from the new categorization schema altogether (which wasn't decided). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atethnekos: The decision was very clear: that biogs would not be categorised in a category named "pseudoscientsists". If you can't find a category name which excludes that word (or its derivatives), then the result is that articles don't get included in the pseudoscientific category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the decision say, "If you can't find a category name which excludes that word (or its derivatives), then the result is that articles don't get included in the pseudoscientific category tree"? How about the suggestion "pseudobiologists", etc? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONSENSE. What exactly would be point of the closure by BD2412, ThaddeusB, and BOZ if the result was biogs still ended up in a category which explicitly labelled them as pseudoscientists? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept the premiss of your question, so I cannot really answer it: I don't think using any of "pseudobiologist", "pseudoscientific biologist", etc. is explicitly labeling someone a "pseudoscientist". I think the word has to actually occur for the labeling to be explicit, such being the difference between explicit and implicit. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are this a wind-up of some sort? Are you really serious??????
A "pseudoscientific biologist" is a pseudoscientist working in the field of biology. Nothing implicit; it's what the phrase means. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always serious here; I don't think facetious comments are effective online. I'm not sure how you could reach that conclusion about the meaning of the term "pseudoscientific biologist". The term simply does not exist outside of this discussion ([1]), it can only mean whatever we define it as meaning. Similar to the term "Advocates of pseudoscience".
If that's what you mean by "explicitly", that's fine, and we can use that usage here. So, let's define a term of art: explicitly*, which describes usages where the term actually occurs, as opposed to "explicitly" which is what you mean by the word. E.g., saying "figure A is trilateral" would be explicitly to say that figure A is triangular, but it would not be explicitly* to say that figure A is triangular. To give a more formal description: Things explicitly stated need only be implied by a set of actual statements and background knowledge, but things explicitly* stated need to be in the set of actual statements. So to answer your question: The point could be to disallow explicitly* categorizing biographies as pseudoscientists, but not explicitly categorizing biographies as pseudoscientists. Indeed, I think this would be required: Because if "explicitly" means that, then categorizing someone in any of the subcategories of "Advocates of pseudoscience" would also be explicitly categorizing someone as a pseudoscientist. Disallowing that, would be absurd, because it would mean not categorizing anyone in any subcategories of the category "Advocates of pseudoscience". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of thing that can make Wikipedia-editing a head hurting exercise :(
It's a simple matter of grammar. A "blue banana" is explicitly labelled as "blue" by the use of that word as an adjective. A "pseudoscientific biologist" is explicitly labelled as "pseudoscientific" by the use of that word as an adjective.
We can disagree about whether that's a good idea, but when an editor starts arguing that the normal rules of grammar don't apply, I start to wonder whether I am arguing with a troll :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to a subject claimed to be a "pseudobiologist", what do they advocate to cause them to be so described? There must be some way to categorize subjects based on the specific ideas or theories that they advocate. bd2412 T 03:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
For Lysenko, the sources just describe him as a pseudoscientist in biology. Of the twenty sources I looked at which describe him as a pseudoscientist, none of them explicitly say what causes him to be described as such. If I had to guess, I would say they do so because they believe he did not follow minimally adequate methods for the field of biology. That's generally how the category works within our reliable sources: It's not the specific ideas or theories which make someone pseudoscientific in the minds of experts, it's the methods or lack of methods followed. E.g., Massimo Pigliucci concludes just that in Nonsense on Stilts (University of Chicago Press, 2010): "So what about pseudoscience? What picture emerges there? A field can fall into that category because it again fails to meet the three criteria of naturalism, theory, and empiricism, and yet its supporters insist that there is no problem." (p. 304) E.g., Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, but he wasn't a pseudoscientist on this view, because he followed adequate methods: It's just that he lacked the information and resources we have now to reach the right conclusions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are oxymorons - either a scientist in these fields is a physicist, astronomer or biologist, or is not a scientist at all. Also per WP:NEOLOGISM, the terms are not in use; it's worth noting that Google searches for these three terms only provide results within Wikipedia (except for Pseudoscientific biologists, which also returns a blog post). Made-up terms simply can't be applied to BLPs. Diego (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fixed with a renaming. There are many sources for Pseudohistorians, Pseudophysicist, Pseudoastronomers and Pseudobiologists. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close of the previous CFD probably should not be seen as binding on these categories (they weren't discussed after all), but the same principles apply. People don't self indentify as "pseduoscience XXXists"; the term is only applied by opponents. Looking at the actual cases in these categories I would say:
Kauko Armas Nieminen - not a trained physist, so probably should not be described as a physist psuedo or otherwise (by category or text). "Ether vortices" is probably not worth categorizing on, so just the category Pseudophysics is adequate. He is the only person in "Pseudoscientific physicists" so if he absolutely must be categorized some like "Aether theorists" is no worse than the current category.
Immanuel Velikovsky - already in multiple other pseduo categories and astronomy is not mentioned in the lead. I see no compelling reason to categorize him as any sort of astronomer
Robert Sungenis - Seems t be classified based on his belief in geocentrism. Perhaps a category "Advocates of geocentrism" is in order. (I imagine there are other modern people who advocate for this idea.)
Zecharia Sitchin - Already in multiple other pseudo categories. His ideas seem to be based primarily on "ancient alien" theories (which he is classified under), so I see no compelling reason to also classify him as any sort of astronomer.
Rupert Sheldrake - He advocates for his "morphic resonance" idea. This idea is tied to biology in some sense, but seems more clearly to be a type of parapsychology under which he is already classified. I guess he did some legit biology too, so can be classified as a biologist.
Trofim Lysenko - His idea became well-enough known to get an extensive article, Lysenkoism. The simple solution is to make a category "Lysenkoism" and classify that category as a pseudoscience. Not sure if anyone else with an article would fall into that category at current, but the Lysenkoism article makes it clear that plenty of notable people practiced it.
In summary, there is no need for these tiny categories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We still have the problem of moving the people from the Pseudoscientists category to subcategories of the Advocates of pseudoscience category. We can't just put them in things like "Aether theorists" or Advocates of geocentrism", because that still has the problem of distinguishing the pseudoscientific from the nonpseudoscientific. E.g., Maxwell wasn't a pseudoscientist but he was an aether theorist; and neither was Tycho Brahe, but he was an advocate of geocentrism. We would need to make categories like "Advocates of pseudoscientific geocentrism" etc., or some acceptable name.
Really, the condition you've made is impossible to meet, and for an obvious reason. We've been instructed by the close to create categories of members of fields "on the condition that reliable sources generally classify the subcategorized field itself as a pseudoscience." Now you've added the condition that the members have to self-identify with this "subcategorized field". Well, few are going to do that, and for an obvious reason: No one who has pretensions of being a good scientist wants to be classified as taking part in something with is generally recognized as pseudoscience. E.g., Lysenko self-identified as a biologist or a "Michurinist", not a "Lysenkoist" (for more than one reason). Sheldrake self-identifies as a biologist, not a "parapsychologist". Pseudoscientists either take part in the euphemism treadmill, or they just refuse to identify with any grouping which might be treated as distinctively pseudoscientific. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add a condition, I merely specified one of reasons why such subcats are preferable. It is not absolutely necessary that one indetify themselves as a parapsychologist, for example... For cases like alchemy or geocentrism where there is a difference between the scientific idea in the past and the non-scientific adherence to it today, I would suggest something like Category:Historical alchemists for the legit scientists as opposed to Category:Pseudoscience alchemists for the modern people. That is just advice though; the main point of the consensus finding is that people should not be directly classified as a pseudoscientist. Categories such as "Pseudoscientific physicists" fail to achieve that aim. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"should not be directly classified as a pseudoscientist." So the subcategories cannot logically imply (what some mean by "explicitly state") that the members are pseudoscientists? Can we be given an example of how any one of those reclassified from category:Pseudoscientists to sub-categories of category:Advocates of pseudoscience could properly be so reclassified? I'm at a loss as to how to do this. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstand the question... Taking someone at random, I have just recategorized Glynis McCants from Category:Pseudoscientists to Category:Numerologists. The general idea is to take the general "psuedoscientist" label and recalssify people into their actual area that got them the label. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how is that proper? category:Numerologists doesn't belong in category:Advocates of pseudoscience, because the reliable sources don't agree that numerology in general is pseudoscience; only some of it is described as pseudoscience. We still have to distinguish the pseudoscientific numerologists from the nonpseudoscientific numerologists. We can't just throw the entire class of numerologists under the heading of "Advocates of pseudoscience", that just blatantly fails WP:V.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, if numerologists are not psuedoscientists, then this change is entirely appropriate, and it may be appropriate to remove category:Numerologists from category:Advocates of pseudoscience. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some numerologists are pseudoscientists, some are not. It is appropriate to remove category:Numerologists from category:Advocates of pseudoscience; necessary by WP:V and WP:NPOV. The question is, into which subcategory of category:Advocates of pseudoscience should Glynis McCants be moved from her no-longer-allowed place in category:Pseudoscientists, and mutatis mutandis for the other cases?--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis in the Glynis McCants article for directly categorizing her as a pseudoscientist. The article doesn't use that term at all, and we need a reliable source that says she is a pseudoscientist. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(To use a more well-populated category), it is true that many astrologers do not practice psuedoscience (i.e. do not pretend there is anything scientific about astrology). This was a concern mentioned, but not really discussed much in the original CFD. Our best judgement was that renaming the category from "pseudoscientists" to "advocates of pseudoscience" at least partially adresses this concern. That is, practicing astrology does not necessarily mean practicing pseudoscience, but it does mean advocating something which is labeled as a pseudoscience. The top-level category being only a holding category allows it to aid in navigation without actually labelling anyone a pseudoscientist in a way visible on articles; we believe the consensus is that this scheme satisfies BLP concerns. Whether subcategories should be divided for "historical" or "mystical" differentiation is not a determination we were able to make based on the CFD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't have reliable sources agreeing that numerologists are all advocates of pseudoscience. This is the same mutatis mutandis any putative subcategory which does not correspond to a group of pseudoscientists. It's a WP:V and WP:NPOV nightmare. "...it does mean advocating something which is labeled as a pseudoscience" sounds like clear WP:SYNTH. What you seem to be saying is that some sources label some numerology as pseudoscience, some other sources label some set of people as numerologists, therefore the sources agree that that set of people can be categorized as advocates of pseudoscience. That's reaching a conclusion which is not made explicit in any of the sources. The sources do not say that Pythagoras, Aleister Crowley or William Breeze are numerologists cum advocates of pseudoscience. They agree that they are numerologists, but there's no mention of pseudoscience. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you want of me. I am just telling you what the consensus at the CFD was. If this inability to distinguish between the non-pseudoscience numerologist/astrologers/etc. and the pseudoscience ones is a problem, it is certainly not a problem created by the rename. It wasn't really discussed much at the CFD, so I'm not sure many people see it as a problem. If it is seen as a problem, then a consensus as such would have to be established and news "advocates" category would be deleted. (Not perfectly overlapping subcats is hardly unique to this situation, for the record.) Speaking specifically of numerology, is cat:numerology can be categorized in cat:pseudoscience (and it is), I fail to see why cat:numerologists under cat:advocates of pseudoscience is problematic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But your antecedent is not met, so your consequent is not required by that reasoning. The 2006 Arbcom ruling implies that numerology cannot be so categorized: It does not meet the requirements of either Obvious pseudoscience or Generally considered pseudoscience, but instead meets those of Questionable science, which means that it "generally should not be so characterized" as pseudoscience. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If numerology is not generally considered a pseudoscience then why does the article say it is "regarded as pseudomathematics or pseudoscience by modern scientists." Looking back at the original CFD, you wrote "A pseudoscientist is any one who advocates anything properly categorized as pseudoscience. That's as plain as any other category." Based on that position, if numerology is properly called a pseudoscience, nothing is lost by classifying McCants as a numerologist. If it isn't, then he should have never been classified as a pseudoscientist to begin with by your own definition. In either case, I fail to see how reclassifying him has created a problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, ThaddeusB, this decision, while very important, concerns only categories. Battles have been hard fought to identify individuals as pseudoscientists in the lede paragraphs. Those that want to keep that identification out have been called anti-WP:FRINGE (and even anti-Wikipedians) and those editors who want individuals identified as pseudoscientists have usually succeeded. I don't know how to address this in a systematic way. It usually ends up in a dispute on the LP's article talk page or WP:FTN. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which articles say n the lede that the subject is a pseudoscientist, rather than an advocate of pseudoscience? Some people undoubtedly are identified for contributions to pseudoscience. Russell Targ is known almost exclusively for his work in the pseudoscience of remote viewing, Rupert Sheldrake is known primarily for his invention and advocacy of the pseudoscientific conjecture that is morphic resonance, Prosper-Rene Blondlot is known for his pseudoscientific investigation of n-rays, Dana Ullman is a staunch advocate of every single pseudoscientific conjecture in support of homeopathy. I don't think any of these calls the subject a pseudoscientist in the lede. I don't think even the execrable Wakefield is called this, not even Velikovsky, the canonical example of times past. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Advocates of geocentrism only makes sense after the heliocentric model became accepted. If it helps, rename the master category "advocates of pseudoscience, pathological science and refuted theories", or "advocates of ideas now considered pseudoscientific", or (better) clarify it in the category page. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stanton T. Friedman is probably an excellent example of why not to classify people this way. At leats according to the article, he was a physist and now researches UFOs, but there is no indictation the two are connected. "Ufologists" is sufficient to clasify him as a psuedoscience practitioner and "nuclear physicist" is sufficient to classify his research work. There is no reason to conflate the two. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The net result category:nuclear physicists and category:pseudophysics do not mix well. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The three person admin group's decision was to not have the category label "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientist" on articles of living person. Individuals can be put in a topical area that concerns their interest, work or field of study and THAT category can go into "Advocates of pseudoscience". This is just a way around that admin decision. Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Pseudophysicists, Category:Pseudoastronomers, Category:Pseudobiologists. We have people like Viktor Petrik, who are clearly doing pseudoscience (conclusion made by a committee of the Russian Academy of Sciences). If we delete these categories, there is no way to put him under "Advocates of pseudoscience".
People asking for deletion should provide viable alternatives for these categories. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The renamings proposed by Peterkingiron are better than mine: Category:Advocates of pseudoscience in physics, etc. You make clear that they advocate pseudoscience in a field, without labelling the person. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Petrik does not claim to be a scientist. So there is no basis to categorize him as one. But he claims his discoveries are scientifically sound, of Nobel Prize quality, according to the article. The piece of that article that caught my attention is this:

In 2010 Petrik sued two Russian newspapers for defamation after articles they ran about him. He won a judgment against them in which they were ordered to run a retraction and pay damages to him. The settlement awarded him significantly less than he had sought, however. The papers have since insisted that their reports were accurate.

We can report that the opinion of the Russian Academy of Sciences is that he is doing pseudoscience, if we have a source that confirms that. But we shouldn't definitely categorize him as such, that could potentially be called defamation. The article says that in the 1980s he spent time in prison for fraud and extortion. He isn't in category:Fraudsters, but it seems there may be some basis for that. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Petrik might be an example of a pseduo-scientist (a scientific fraud) but that isn't the same thing as "doing pseudoscience" and is certainly not the same thing as advocating for a pseudoscience. Again, this is one of the problems with the old category - there was no way to distinguish between fraudsters and people doing bad science. Where is there any indication Petrik has done anything related to science (as opposed to simply making stuff up) that would qualify his a doing pseduo-physics? Seems "Fraudsters" is the most accurate category for him.--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible rename? As Wbm1058 and Enric Naval note, there is a Category:Pseudophysics and I see that there is a Category:Pseudohistory and Category:Pseudohistorians, so would it be acceptable to have Category:Pseudophysicists, Category:Pseudobiologists and Category:Pseudoastronomers? Or should Wikipedia avoid labeling anyone a "pseudoAnythingist"? Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those supporting a renaming What on earth was the point of getting rid of Category:Pseudoscientists if it is simply replaced on individual articles by Catefory:Pseudoinsert-your-own-branch-of-scienceists?
    It maintains all problems identified at the original CFD, just in a narrower domain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, I was initially voting Delete but I realized that these articles need to be recategorized in some way. If anyone can come up with other solutions, I would consider them. But those voting Keep for Pseudoscientists want these articles categorized in some way so that they fall under Category:Advocates of pseudoscience umbrella. Some of these articles already are (through categories like Category:Pseudohistorians) but not all are and we have to come up with some descriptive categories that identify these scholars as being outside mainstream science. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If those voting keep can come up with some reliable references supporting that their preferred term can be applied to these specific individuals, then they could re-create the pertinent categories. But so far, all but two of the persons tagged are living people, and as such the BLP safeguards for removing unreferenced content take precedence. Diego (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I welcome the 1 May closure decision. We should follow this up by renaming the items under discussion in the format Category:Advocates of pseudoscience in physics or Category:Advocates of pseudoscience (physics) or Category:Physicists advocating pseudoscience. It is possible that a person will both be engaged in proper physics and pseudophysics, in which case he should have categories for both. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These categories are simply a way of bypassing the decision on Category:Pseudoscientists, and have all the same problems (sourceability, BLP, etc.). They should be replaced by more specific categories. For example, Lysenkoism is in Category:Pseudoscience, and so Trofim Lysenko should be in a Category:Lysenkoists which should be in Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. Similarly for the other people. Such more specific categories are sourceable, whereas a WP:NEO such as "pseudobiologist" is not. -- 101.117.30.160 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue for Lysenko is sourceability (I assume it's not BLP), then how is switching the categorization from Pseudoscientist to Lysenkoist an improvement? There are dozens of reliable sources which call Lysenko a "pseudoscientist". I doubt anyone could provide a significant number of reliable sources which call him a "Lysenkoist". I'd even be interested to see if anyone could provide just one such source. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a Lysenkoist is an advocate of Lysenkoism, and Lysenko founded Lysenkoism, I think sourcing is adequate (which it is not for the WP:NEO we have now). But the point here is that any categories that people are placed into should be (1) specific, (2) sourceable, and (3) correspond to subcategories of Category:Pseudoscience. -- 101.117.2.191 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is the logical outcome of the way the previous CfD discussion was closed, and I think we'll now have to live with it (it's what the community decided). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Logical outcome? The CfD explicitly required that subcategories were created "on the condition that reliable sources generally classify the subcategorized field itself as a pseudoscience". Where are the sources defining "Pseudoscientific physicists, astronomers and biologists" not just as pseudoscience, but merely as existing fields? Diego (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not at all the logical outcome of the previous close to have categories created that are reflected nowhere in reliable sources. By contrast, existing or potential categories like Category:Phrenologists, Category:Cryptozoologists, Category:Baraminologists, or Category:Geocentrists would be reliably sourced categories of pseudoscientists. bd2412 T 03:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment - The questions seem to me to relate to whether an individual or field of study is exclusively fringe/pseudo, or, alternately, whether there involvement in a particular field is exclusively fringe/pseudo. Do I have that right? So, for instance, from what I remember anyway, Rupert Sheldrake started as an apparently maybe legitimate biologist, who only clearly went over to the Woo Side after a few years of work in the field. Maybe we might consider specific subcats like Category:Recent advocates of pseudoastronomy or Category: Recent advocates of pseudoastronomical theories or something similar, and maybe indicate somewhere that there are intended to be only used when BLP, broadly construed, is an issue. The now older subcat of Category:Saints for Lutherans, Category:People celebrated in the Lutheran liturgical calendar is kinda verbose too, to meet the specific needs of that instance, but mighy serve as a model for this situation. And I think categories using "advocate" or something similar would not necessarily have the same prejudicial bias as directly calling them "pseudo"-somethings would, and would also not so clearly conflict with categories of "legitimate" science would.
Having babbled on about that, however, I would I guess support deletion and, maybe, calling another RfC, if required, to deal with matters not addressed earlier. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per Peterkingiron's proposal, in lieu of allowing these to be put directly in the main "advocates" category. We need to categorize them by the material they are pushing, not by an ambiguous characterization of what they are. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Rename as before. This doesn't really need discussion, the prior consensus covers this as well. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example in favor of remaning: Janis Roze is a mainstream biologist, but he also promotes a lot of pseudophysics [2]. Current category is Category:Pseudoscientific biologists, it would be much better under Category:Advocates of psedoscience in physics. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have changed my vote to an unqualified delete. I feel that the concerns raised by this article are real and valid. We should just avoid attempting this sort of categorization. Most of these people are already in several other categories, so it's not like we need to find a cat to put them in. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article by Deepak Chopra, complaining that fringe theorists like himself are being labelled as "fringe" in wikipedia......... he says that the label is caused by the bullies in wikipedia, not because the theories are considered fringe in the real world....... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Risk of POV here especially since Viktor Petrik is considered pseudoscientist by the Russian National Academy of Science but not by the Russian Academy of Natural Science.Thundergodz (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Russian Academy of Natural Science has a impressive name, but it doesn't appear to be recognized as a respectable body anywhere (hint: anyone can form a non-profit with "Academy" on the name, pseudoscientific academies have proliferated in Russia in the last years[3], and "consultative status with the UN" has very low requirements[4]). And some members advocate very dubious ideas, who get an appearance of respectability from belonging to it. Some examples: faith-healer Grigory Grabovoy [5], and the guys who promote Torsion field (pseudoscience). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former fire stations in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: moved. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Former, per the parent category, means these no long exist. However most buildings here have only been repurposed and not demolished. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Defunct is a more accurate and inclusive wording. SFB 08:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Businesses located in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Businesses located in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Companies by county or Category:Companies by region. Alternate proposal: rename to "Companies in X" per the schemes at Category:Companies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ousted heads of state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge (but as in practice all member pages are in more specific sub-categories already, this will be implemented as "delete"). – Fayenatic London 05:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed renaming Category:Ousted heads of state to Category:Ousted heads of state and government
Nominator's rationale, heads of government should not be excluded, because they're often just as important as the head of state. Charles Essie (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Heads of state and heads of government are separate category trees, and should be kept separate. Countries with an executive head of state share the two roles, but many countries do not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I suppose. This is a strange category, with perhaps 2% of the possible population (no English kings were ever "ousted" apparently), and a name that will puzzle most non-native speakers. I'm tempted to say delete it. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete it when we could simply improve it? Charles Essie (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to equivalent "head of state" category. Ousted can cover a multiude of things, removed by coup; lost elections; etc. We should not be mixing heads of state and heads of government, becuase they are differnet things in many countries. Several English kings were deposed (ousted) and would need to be in the category: Edward II, Richard II, Charles I and James II, but I do not think we need this at all: ousted is too vague; and this is a backdoor means of getting a "former" category, which we do not normally allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If ousted is to vague, we could use other terms, like "overthrown". Charles Essie (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed. I probably have to side with Peterkingiron to merge into the other subcategories of Category:Heads of state, or if nothing fits, into that category directly. Ousted is simply too ambiguous as documented above. The introduction being as complex as it is points to the problems with the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The term "ousted" just is not definitive enough. I think I know what this category is trying to cover (people forcibly removed from power in a non-procedural manner) but the range of ways in which is can occur devalues the categorisation as such. SFB 08:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment I'd like to close this as "no consensus", but I'm hopping from one thing to another and don't have time properly to close it. I'd appreciate it if someone, anyone, even a participant, were to close it as "no consensus" and attribute the decision (and send any dissenters) to me. Please think of yourself like AnomieBot, which closes FFDs. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian social activists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such category for any other country. The Social activism redirects to Activism.Therefore Category:Indian social activists should be merged into Category:Indian activists. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeand leave a redirect per above. Zince34' 11:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't know what a "non-social" activist would be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Social activist" is just another term for "activist", and not a particular subtype of activists that would require a separate category. Merge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British Columbia Military Units

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Military history of British Columbia following the precedent for Alberta. – Fayenatic London 16:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:British Columbia Military Units to Category:Canadian military units in British Columbia
Nominator's rationale: Aside from the upper-casing which should be lower-case, British Columbia, being a province, does not have a military, the military in question is the Canadian Forces; an alternate name could be Category:Canadian Forces units in British Columbia, perhaps. If the intent was to include the Pacific Station of the Royal Navy or the Columbia Detachment of the Royal Engineers or one-time US units stationed in BC during WWII or the cold War, or other non-Canada militaries once present in BC, which I doubt, then a more general Category:Military units in British Columbia might be OK. Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

North American professional sports league athletes who have won a championship

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, but leaning towards keep, as the citations provided late in the discussion by Dolovis seem to confirm that this is defining, as the players were identified in the article headlines as "Stanley Cup champion" etc. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning a major championship is highly defining of a player. It is something that is always mentioned in the media that a player was a Stanley Cup or Super Bowl champion. This is definitely a category that most people would expect to find when reading an encyclopedia. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence for your last statement ? DexDor (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well quite simply the most important aspect of a team sport players career is whether they were on a team that won a championship. If its the most important aspect of their career then likely people are going to want to find out who those special athletes are that won that championship. Winning the Superbowl or the Stanley Cup is the equivalent for pro sports of winning a gold medal at the Olympics. You wouldn't suggest removing the Olympic gold medal winner category from amateur athletes who played a team sport would you? -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We shouldn't categorize people by what championships their team has won. The appropriate categories for the people are Category:Canadian ice hockey players etc. Note: There are some lists etc in these categories that may need to be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it is, articles of said champions often make note of the fact on multiple occasions throughout. I also agree with the points made in the previous discussion that there is a bit of over-categorizing going on. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we categorize Olympic medalists as being medalists, as these are major championships, they are hardly that different. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning a major championship is a defining point in a person's life. Hence why we have categories such as Category:Olympic gold medalists for the United States. Canuck89 (have words with me) 06:49, May 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Same reasoning as in the previous related nomination - this is a defining aspect of a player as it represents them reaching the peak of their field. Should relay runners also be excluded from Category:Olympic gold medalists for the United States on the grounds that they are a team? Previous delete reasoning were based upon: this type of category not usually being done (the Olympic example being a prominent counter-example) and overcategorisation for individuals (awards categories are commonly applied to individuals from winning groups e.g. Category:Grammy Award-winning artists). As for the reasoning that winning a sports competition is not a defining aspect of a player, I struggle to understand the starting point for that logic. SFB 13:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- If this were about teams it would apply to almost all of them. If it is about players, I think it fails WP:OC#AWARD, or if not it is too similar for comfort. Each player will have enough categories related to his sport and team, not to need another. Olympic medallists should be treated as an exception, because we would not categorise them as competitors or team members. In contrast, all those involved here will be in a team category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Just to get clarity on the above argument per WP:OC#AWARD: do you believe winning one of the highest honours in a player's sport is not a defining characteristic for a team player (as opposed to an individual)? SFB 20:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a Super Bowl or Stanley Cup are exemplary examples of what is meant by WP:DEFINING which states that “a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having.” For example: [6]" and [7], picking just two random examples of the thousands of similar prose commonly found when such a champion player is mentioned. Dolovis (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are reasons to keep them and reasons to get rid of them. It's a team trophy. We list the team champions. The team is listed on the trophy itself. What these categories are useful for is developing a list of players that have been Cup/Bowl-winning team members, but that's not really a defining characteristic. Since there have been so many members, it is unlikely that the editors here would build a 'List of Stanley Cup winning players'. So if the basis for delete is defining players, then no it doesn't really define them. However, it is a useful category for categorizing players. Alaney2k (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Official Monster Raving Loony Party politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep; to delete Category:Official Monster Raving Loony Party, it would need to be nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main cat only has one article and this subcat in it. Makes more sense just to have the cat JDDJS (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_22&oldid=1142498808"