Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 11

< July 10	July 12 >

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 12:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename this as Category:Student debating societies, which is the content. Septentrionalis 18:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename per nominator; this is precisely what they are. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If all debating societies throughout history and world cultures are of the "student" variety, then adding "Student" to the category name is redundant. If there are other types of debating societies, then they would belong here as well, but just aren't listed yet. I have heard of "debating societies" in that form of terminology only, no qualifiers, and know nothing else about them on the basis of which to be so presumptuous as to assert there is anything otherwise *wrong* with this category as it stands. There is, of course, no Wikipedia Article about the Debating Society thru time and cultures, and perhaps that is the issue which needs addressing. 12.73.198.43 00:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, fine as is. Maurreen 08:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 12:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This category contains two articles, one of which is already in Category:Pseudophysics. Since the other is also a physical theory, I suggest the category be merged into Category:Pseudophysics. (The defining quality of 'pseudophysics' is "have not undergone the critical review process needed in order to be accepted by the scientific community") ---Septentrionalis 15:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Obviously, if the defining quality of the category presently called 'pseudophysics' is as you say above, then that category is misnamed. There is no basis for attaching the pejorative label "pseudo" to something simply because it had not undergone the critical review process needed for acceptance. If it had not undergone a critical review, how can it be judged as "pseudo"? The name is clearly POV. The accurate and objective name for things that have not been accepted into the mainstream is not "pseudo" but "non-mainstream" or "not accepted into the mainstream". KEEP the name non-mainstream science and get rid of the misnamed pseudophysics. FrankZappo 22:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, I agree. Salsb 19:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, per nominator: that definition of pseduophysics is taken from the cat to merge to.? -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• I believe the correct term is Pseudoscience (of which pseudophysics would be a subsection). Radiant_>|< 09:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Category:Pseudophysics is already a subcat of Category:Pseudoscience, though. -Splash 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Do not change this category. There are 2 voluminous archives of discussion on the aetherometry discussion pages - which many people worked on for weeks - on why 'non-mainstream physics' is a perfectly valid and important NPOV category and should not be idealistically merged with, or replaced by, the highly POV category of pseudophysics. I advise you read the archives rather than wasting everyone's time all over again. As the name indicates, pseudophysics is not physics but false physics.
• Merge/delete. The used (highly inprecise) euphemism only tries to wash away reality. Pavel Vozenilek 20:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The two articles can simply be recat'ed. Vsmith 22:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• 'Reality'? What kind of a joke is that? Reality of what? Pseudo is pseudo, fake. Non-mainstream is serious - but non-mainstream - science. It's hardly a question of 'euphemisms'. To call it pseudo is only the reality of a biased convention. It has no bearing on the reality of the science. If it is not science, then it is pseudo. If it is science and you call it pseudo, then it is not only wrong, it's also libel. What other meaning, pray tell, does pseudo have? Unless you want to redefine the meaning of words...

• Delete the cat. Both articles are currently also cat'ed into Category:Pseudophysics. FWIW, there is no such thing as non-mainstream science. If its science, its by definition mainstream. If its not mainstream, its not science. linas 05:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Gee, they could have qualified for the linas/Connolley/Salsb/ Pjacobi 'we support the pseudophysics/pseudoscience' tag team club...

• "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology France, 1872 (p.30)

• "Fooling around with alternating current in just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." -Thomas Edison, 1889 (p.207)

• "Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre (p.245)

• "To affirm that the aeroplane is going to 'revolutionize' naval warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration." -Scientific American, 1910 (p.246)

• "The whole procedure of shooting rockets into space. . . presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished." -Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer (p.257)

• "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Ernst Rutherford, 1933 (p.215)

• "Space travel is bunk" - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik (p.258)

• "But what hell is it good for?" -Engineer Robert Lloyd, IBM 1968, commenting on the microchip (p.209)

• "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977 (p.209)

• Merge or Delete. Either it's pseudoscience or science, distinction between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" is ham-fisted and difficult at best, but mostly just POV. siafu 00:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• This is an example of a rigged and non-enlightened vote. take the example of Autodynamics. Its claims are no more or less falsifiable than Relativity. The curves and the predictions for acceleration of material particles give essentially the same results. So how does one choose between which of the two theories is the adequate one? To state categorically that "if its science, its by definition mainstream" is patently absurd. It is not a majority that can decide whether Relativity or Autodynamics is more accurate. It is a matter of presenting tests that distinguish between the two hypotheses. Just because most physicists work on the framework of Relativity, does not make the latter truer to physical nature than Autodynamics. Moreover, Autodynamics has been published in mainstream publications, peer-reviewed in grants and publications, and still that does not make it mainstream. So, it is not even true that what is mainstream science is what is published in mainstream journals. Findings, theories, models, may be published in mainstream journals and be peer-reviewed, and not constitute mainstream science. Avoiding the difficulties of the argument is what peremptory declarations are good for. Then it is they who make them that suffer from an incurable POV. It is called dogmatism. And dogmatism is incompatible with the true scientific spirit.Keep this category216.254.166.86 02:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you genuinely planning to harass each and every opposing viewpoint? (I'm assuming, of course, that you meant "rigid" instead of "rigged") I was sympathetic to the distinction between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", just not to its application to Wikipedia. However, it now seems rather clear that you are more interested in enforcing a POV belief in pseudoscience than maintaining this distinction for its own value. Autodynamics, your example, completely falls on its face when presented with experimental data: it is pseudoscience, and not merely "non-mainstream". Relabelling it as merely outside the mainstream is POV. siafu 07:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Look 'siafu, I'm not the person above and I don't appreciate having my interventions deleted/censored just because *you* happen to think attempting to introduce some balance which is otherwise lacking in the discussion of pseudo vs non-mainstream is offensive to you personally. But, while we're here, let's see you *demonstrate* how "Autodynamics falls on its face when presented with experimental data:" instead of just stating it as though it were a fact. And here's my text that you deleted 4.231.172.84 13:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more [with 216.254.166.86]. Claims that - "Either it's pseudoscience or science, distinction between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" is ham-fisted and difficult at best, but mostly just POV* - is pure POV. Reminds me of that line in Bladerunner: "If you're not police, you're little people." It so happens that another very legitimate POV would claim that much of the very best work done today is being done by those *outside* the hermetically sealed military, corporate, academic pork-barrel granting systems - precisely because the door is closed to research that does not conform to a 'party line' of entrenched interests - be it in physics, biology, toxicology, medicine, climatology, cosmology, geology, etc., etc. And any student of the history of science knows full well that historically, this has most often been the case. Real paradigmatic jumps in our understanding of the functions of nature are initiated from outside of - and not from inside - the box. For the majority of you all to gibly agree that science has to be either mainstream or pseudo, and that there's no place for excellence in non-mainstream science is pure POV, IMHO of the most servile sort. The very fine research, which those promoting removal of the non-mainstream category, are pitching in together willy nilly with obvious a-scientific, mystical nonsense is being done with no other intent than to maliciously discredit it under the disparaging and inaccurate rubrik 'pseudo': fake. Far from being a "noble mission" as this clique claims it is pursuing, it is very arguably, a most ignoble one, more like a cathoic Inquision of purification by way of poisonously discrediting any work that would dare stray from current scientific dogma.

Is the lack of mainstream approval, touted like a blind butcher ax by the self-appointed judges of the pseudophysics domain, in and of itself, really sufficient to declare science good or pseudo? I think not.

• Something Rotten at the Core of Science?

• The case against peer-review

• Peer Review is Censorship and Intimidation

• Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science

• The end of the Peer Show - scientists’ misguided attempt to solve a non-existent problem

• Malice's Wonderland: Research Funding and Peer Review

• Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity

• The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation

• Peer review is broken.

• Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?

• Suppressing Dissent in Science

• Hampering the progress of science by peer review and by the 'selective' funding system

• A Case Study of Data Suppression and Misrepresentation

• "A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine"

• A STUDY IN SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION

• Science and Politics: An Uneasy Mix

• Proposed Definitions Relating (1) to the Suppression of Research and (2) to the Repression of Research

• Suppression of Dissent in Science

• Science Versus Science

I didn't delete anything, though it's possible there was an edit conflict (you can see here that there was no deletion in my edit). If so, sorry, but you'll learn how to recognize and handle that with more experience on wikipedia. As for Autodynamics, one can only accept it as true if you ignore all evidence regarding the existence of the neutrino-- but I'll leave you to research that yourself, it's merely tangential to the discussion. I certainly agree that new theories are "non-mainstream", but how exactly are we to use such a distinction here on Wikipedia? I'm certainly not advocating the removal of the material on the topics included in the category, just that wikipedia not attempt to distinguish between what is in the scientific mainstream and that which, while equally valid, is not (which does not include Autodynamics). A good example, perhaps, is Heim Theory, which is not commonly accepted or discussed due to its previously being published only in German. I would personally classify this as "non-mainstream" but not "pseudoscience", but what good is my personal classification? One could just as easily argue that it is "mainstream", though in the minority. Hence, my vote to delete this category-- I don't see a way to seperate articles on scientific theories and phenomena into mainstream or non- without resorting to simple POV. siafu 15:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Autodynamics states most scientists consider Autodynamics little more than a crackpot theory. That doesn't sound to me that it's science at all, mainstream or otherwise. Remember, this isn't a nomination to delete your crackpot theory articles, just the category. --Kbdank71 16:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is the source for such statement? Whoever you are Kbdank, you do not even realize that you cannot quote as source a statement in a wikipedia entry made by other members of your cabal and without any attribution. Keep this category 209.29.95.52 16:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, while anonymous users are welcome to comment, only users whose accounts existed at the time of the beginning of the poll can cast votes (anon votes are discounted), so continually repeating your keep vote is not meaningful. siafu 17:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice dictatorial rules you guys got here. So much for genuine interest on topics and seasoned decisions. I'll take my hat off, and ponder how to deal with such rigged, that's RIGGED votes as the ones you administrators carry on with all of your cyberpowers... 209.29.95.52 17:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Two clicks would have gotten you here: [1] Written by wired news. Gasp! Oh no! Wired news has been taken over by a Cabal!!! Oh, the humanity! (by the way, I'm Kbdank71, please get it right next time). --Kbdank71 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Kbdank71, whoever you are so proud of your tattoed arm: you're so blind you cannot read? The article you mention states: "Mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics a crackpot theory for decades, and most agree that an experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1984 proved the theory wrong." It does NOT say what you wrote, that "Autodynamics states most scientists consider Autodynamics little more than a crackpot theory"...Can you read your own text? Guess not. 209.29.95.52 16:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• What? Listen, anon, whoever you are, I don't give a rip about Autodynamics, or any other pseudosceintific theory. I'm here to discuss the category, and it's my opinion that it should go. --Kbdank71 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't 'what' me. You wrote what you wrote. In factual error. Cannot admit it? Then you have an incurable lack of objectivity. If you don't give a fig about Autodynamics, and yet classify it as pseudoscience (knee-jerk reaction), ethically you should not be in this discussion. Either you care about science, its truths and the struggle for acceptance of new paradigm shifts, or you should have no business here. 209.29.95.52 17:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as this discussion is about Category:Non-mainstream science and not Autodynamics, not giving a rat's ass about that particular crackpot theory in now way means that someone doesn't have any business here. If anything, discussing autodynamics itself doesn't belong here; whatever the outcome of this discussion, the content of the autodynamics article will not be affected. Either you care about the category named or you should have no business here; this is not a forum to grandstand about the validity of particular theories. siafu 17:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• You're a perfect example siafu (little blind ant that can travel fast but doesn't give a "rat's ass" about science, or knowledge for that matter) - of the disaster of wikipedia running amok in the hands of people who neither know the subject matter, nor give a rat's ass about it, yet are aspiring to make decisions about it. Categories, little ant posing as an encyclopedean, must be determined on the basis of what needs to placed into them - so that one doesn't file siafus under astromomy, for example. You see? Or else, following the probably sagacious advice of Larry Sanger, co-founder of wikipedia, they should be thrown out the window altogether. A very good idea, I should think, since they seem to be nothing more than entrenched political footballs. When individuals are incapable of categorizing subject matter, other than on the POVs of strongly opinionated cliques, information is deformed beyond recognition. I will repeat what has already been poined out, pseudo is fake, non-mainstream is non-mainstream science and actually *giving* a rat's ass about the difference is precisely why the non-mainstream category needs to be kept. Anyway you clearly have an astonishing amount of hostility against autodynamics, and who knows, perhaps against anything non-mainstream and would like, in your blind rage to just throw them all under 'pseudo' thereby discredting everything equally. How very democratic of you. How very pseudoencyclopedian of you. 4.227.255.48 KEEP THE NON-MAINSTREAM

Perhaps you are mistaking me for the person who said that he didn't care about Autodynamics; I was simply defending kbdank71's viewpoint by noting that the validity of autodynamics is not specifically relevant to this discussion. I would suggest attacking arguments instead of the people who present them; my point stands that wikipedia is not able to make the determination between mainstream and non-mainstream without resorting to POV, whether it be autodynamics or other theories. Can you demonstrate how this is not the case in a convincing way? If not, then I would also suggest that you refrain from harassing other users and ascribing "hostility" and "blind rage" to their reasoned viewpoints. It seems clear that you very strongly believe that autodynamics is actual science instead of pseudoscience; that discussion belongs on Talk:Autodynamics, and not here, as I indicated above. The category is defined absent of the validity of an individual entry. If you plan on simply continuing the name-calling, I would suggest you review Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you find yourself banned from editting. siafu 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Siafu, don't waste your time. No matter what you say the anon will come back with something. Just ignore him and he'll have nothing to argue against. --Kbdank71 18:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• If Autodynamics is not pseudoscience but an example of non-mainstrema science published in scientific journals, then this discussion belongs where it is. I will not answer to the rest of your provocation. 209.29.95.52 17:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• • by the way, neither wired or wired.com are peer-reviewed scientific publications... They are glossy advertizing. 209.29.95.52 16:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Freddie Salsbury: at least you acknowledge that non-mainstream science exists and should not be confused with pseudo or false science. But not knowing how to slice the bacon is not reason to throw it in the garbage pail, is it?209.29.95.52 16:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This whole discussion is so POV-laden that there is no way the change would reflect neutrality or objectivity towards the topics involved - a symptom, I fear, of a far larger problem within Wikipedia on many subjects. Especially considering that Kbdank71 claims to be an admin, and has elsewhere proven his willingness to let his POV guide his site-given perks as such. 12.73.198.43 00:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• It needed a correct definition, neutral and worth voting for. Keep as is now. 216.254.157.191 02:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• The whole concept of "Mainstream science" is bogus. Either it is considered science now or not. Obviously human knowledge will change over the centuries and judgements will change, but this is out of our reach. Category:Pseudophysics better captures the difference between Autodynamics and Special relativity. Delete. --Pjacobi 08:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• You're bogus Pjacobi. You were involved in the creation of this pseudophysics smear category to suit your narrow-minded POV - and most of your editing time is spent on providing false information on the scientific works in the non-mainstream categories for the sole purpose of allowing you to dump them into pseudophysics. Your edits are bogus and are regularly deleted. Delete Pjacobi. Keep the non-mainstream category 4.249.186.114 15:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 12:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that this cat should be merged with its parent, Category:History by region. They're both a little sparse. --Brunnock 14:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge. No meaningful distinction. -- Visviva 03:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. Not particularly useful/redundant. siafu 00:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge — Too few major continent related articles (only Roman conquests and Attila the Hun?) And even then they span several continents. Not meaningful. Greg Robson 08:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 12:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Goth. -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 00:21 (UTC)

• Merge & rename both to Category:Gothic culture. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:16 (UTC)
• MERGE then remake Gothic into a category about the historical period and styles of that period, or Germanic culture relating to the Gothic, Gothic alphabet, etc. 132.205.45.148 4 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
• Merge, then rename to "Goth culture". James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Note: There is a consensus to merge this category, but to what is up in the air. Please let your opinion be known. Thanks. --Kbdank71 14:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Use Category:Goth. -Sean Curtin 23:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Complicated vote: Rename to Category:Goth culture per James F.. Oppose Category:Gothic culture as it's just not called that, and it implies some reference to the architectural period. Also oppose Category:Gothic as architectural since this isn't the place to make a category which requires someone going to find the articles. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per Radiant (Gothic is a phrase that describes the culture of a group, where Goth is the individual), including not using Category:Gothic as architectural as per Splash, as it exists Category:Gothic architecture also see Gothic architecture. (Just in case, if we want numbers. Google: Gothic culture 1,490,000; Goth culture 511,000; Yahoo Reference) <>Who?¿? 05:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Rename to Category:Goth Culture or Category:Goth Subculture; "Gothic Culture" makes more sense as the culture of the Gothic (Visigoth, Ostrogoth) peoples of antiquity. siafu 00:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the definition of a 'major' programming language is arbitrary, this is redundant with Category:Programming languages. Radiant_>|< 12:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Brunnock 14:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Hooperbloob 16:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — all the langs in there are major, and we already have Category:Esoteric programming languages which was recently preferred to its template. It is a little arbitrary, but not all that arbitrary and it's such a dry subject it's not really at risk of POV pushing. Might get the occasional silly entry, but that's easy fixed. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the definition of a major programming language? --Brunnock 13:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Like I said, it's a little arbitrary. But I don't think many people would disagree that e.g. Java and C++ are major. Too turn things around, what's the definition of an "esoteric programming language" - which already have their own category? -Splash 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree that each programming language is either major or esoteric. Radiant_>|< 14:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmmm...that's not what I said, though. The esoteric languages are not minority languages per se — they have peculiar features or do not 'really' exist or have various other strangeness see Esoteric programming languages. There are some languages that 'rule the world' and others that barely register; I'm not going to offer quantitative criteria for this but it's pretty evident to those involved in the field which are major and which are not. That said, I can see the reasoning in saying "filtering them out as major/minor" is unencyclopedic and, whilst I would also disagree with that, that's not the basis for deletion give here. Like I said, it's such a dry subject that there's very little likelihood of POV problems creeping in and I reckon the community would probably support all or most of the current inhabitants of this category. -Splash 15:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The categorisation of programming languages should be completely redone. Proper solution would be to have complete list of languages and some user interface where I could specify criteria and do selection with results sorted by relevance. One selection criteria could be popularity: from obscure or abandoned to major. (I know Wikipedia has nothing similar and likely never will.) Currently used template Template:Major programming languages is redundant with the category (and equally arbitrary, IMHO). Pavel Vozenilek 20:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Rename. Though Splash makes a solid point, the word "major" does not oppose "esoteric". siafu 00:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Super 12 rugby union competition, which has already been completed for 2005, will resume in 2006 with two new teams and a new name, Super 14. There was already a Super 14 teams category which had the two new teams; I moved all the Super 12 teams over to the Super 14 category. Dale Arnett 10:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete empty and redundant per nominator. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete totally non-controversial.GordyB 20:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 11:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as an attack category. Refreshing to see that kind of thing here rather than in VfD! -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete HEY! this was a legitimate category for Hong Kong politicians-turned-porn stars!  ;) --Hooperbloob 23:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• HEY, will someone get the obscenity off the boards. 12.73.198.43 00:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no. The category has already been deleted, but changing the category title here is removing evidence, even if it's obscene. siafu 00:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 12:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Has only 1 article and likely to stay that way. Superfluous. Separate category Category:Domestic cricket competitions is a catch all. Ian ≡ talk 04:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep There should be many more one day, and all of them should be allocated by country, not just some. Calsicol 22:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 12:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a word. Use "psychokinetics" instead. -Sean Curtin 03:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• OBJECT to both namning methods "psychokinetic" is the ability to perform or acts of "psychokinesis" ; "psychokinetics" is the study of "psychokinesis" (in other words, a field of psychophysics, which is itself a field of parapsychology) ; "psychokineticist" is a person who studies "psychokinetics" (in other words, some sort of parapsychologist) ; these categories are for people who pratice "psychokinesis"http://en.wikipedia.org/"telekinesis"... so would this be some other word (they are a sort of psychic) ; I propose Category:Fictional telekinetic psychics and Category:Purported telekinetic psychics or Category:Fictional telekinesis practitioners and Category:Purported telekinesis practitioners. 67.68.64.81 09:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Google confirms that 'psychokinetic' is in fact the word most used. Support Sean's suggestion. Radiant_>|< 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Google results show that "psychokinetics" means acts of psychokinesis, not a person who performs such acts 132.205.3.20 19:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Google shows that the word "psychokineticist" is almost never actually used outside of this category (the #1 Google hit) and the Dungeons & Dragons game. If you can find a word that people actually use that fits better than "psychokinetics", that would be great, but this seems to be the best solution. -Sean Curtin 23:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• OBJECT, should be renamed to Category:Fictional mentalists and Category:Purported mentalists and Category:Mentalists ; spoon benders are called mentalists. 132.205.3.20 19:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "Mentalist" also implies clairvoyance and telepathy. -Sean Curtin 23:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both — the new term may be more widely used on Google, but not in the sense it we are using it here. Psychokineticist is entirely appropriate. I'd be interested in some example of how the literature in question refers to them, however. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• By the way adding 'purported' to a category name is wrong. This is either speculation (hence POV) or an assumption from our side that psychokinesis does not actually exist (hence also POV). If the people call themselves Psychowhatever, they should be in a category stating that, not in Category:People with dubious claims to some mystical power. Radiant_>|< 09:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• This is true. That was a rather poorly thought-out vote on my part. Hmmmm. What can we call the purported people? Category:People who claim to be psychokinetic? Category:Possible psychokineticists? -Splash 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How about Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities (and matching category Category:Fictional people with psychokinetic abilities) 132.205.94.174 21:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that sounds good, rename as above. -Splash 00:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
      • "claiming to have abilities" might be shortened to "claiming abilities"? Radiant_>|< 14:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Objection: it should just be Category:Psychokineticists or Category:Psychokinetists, whichever is the proper term. Any attempt to qualify it further in any way that questions these people's legitimacy, is a POV-based statement. Let the articles deal with the pro's and con's about each individual, and the principal articles on the subject, and let the user decide. Otherwise, I'm going to start a Category:Purported Americans and attach George W. Bush as the first article; it would be as reasonable. 12.73.198.43 23:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Rename as above. Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities and Category:Fictional people with psychokinetic abilities --Kbdank71 16:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 12:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Religious what? Category:Religious workers exists, suggesting that this become Category:Fictional clergy and religious workers. -Sean Curtin 03:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Fictional religious workers for consistency. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. "Chinese language and cultual"! siafu 00:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 11:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Category:Beethoven symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Ludwig van Beethoven
• Category:Bruckner symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Anton Bruckner
• Category:Haydn symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn
• Category:Mahler symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Gustav Mahler
• Category:Shostakovich symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Dmitri Shostakovich

This is more consistent with the custom of categorizing articles as "Compositions by Foo", rather than "Foo Compositions". For more information, see Category Talk: Compositions by composer and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 11#fff5ff symphonies. NatusRoma 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent idea. Radiant_>|< 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all. --Kbdank71 16:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Three more:

• Category:Beethoven string quartets to Category:String quartets by Ludwig van Beethoven
• Category:Beethoven string quartets by opus to Category:String quartets by Ludwig van Beethoven by opus
• Category:Bartók string quartets to Category:String quartets by Béla Bartók

NatusRoma 04:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename those also. --Kbdank71 17:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. Pavel Vozenilek 20:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all. siafu 00:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename everything. First and last names are essential as a standard: there are a couple of Strausses, and several Bachs, e.g. 12.73.198.43 00:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 11:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics, name is inconsistent with related categories, empty. -- Jonel | Speak 02:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Jonel. "Olympic athletes at the ... Olympics" is also redundantly titled. Whig 02:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant category, redundant title. siafu 00:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 11:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This category was recently orphaned by mistake. In the mean time History of Cinema was renamed History of film and Category:Cinema was renamed Category:Film. --Samuel Wantman 01:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per nom. We seem to be heading towards film a a standard. The category should match the article. <>Who?¿? 02:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. Radiant_>|< 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - As I thought I had pointed out in the Category:Cinema by Country CfR debate, the case has not been made for renaming "Cinema" articles to "Film". As far as I can see the History of Cinema page was changed to History of Film without any consensus being reached. The same also seems to be true for the change from Cinema to Film in the lead article. It looks as if someone has changed Cinema to Film themselves, and then argued all the other articles & categories should be brought into line with the change. It would be better if the History of Film article was reverted to History of Cinema until this has been settled. The word "Cinema" has been used in these articles for a reason; it is not interchangeable with the word "Film". Based on the discussions that have taken place on the "Cinema by Country" debate, I would suggest that "Cinema" may be the most appropriate term and that the lead article should be reverted. There should at least have been a discussion on this change before it was made and used as justification for changing every other article and category. JW 19:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. There have been several CfR/CfD's recently dealing with cinema→film. I can't find them right now; maybe someone else can help out. -Splash 00:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment - They were all based on the argument that only a few categories used Cinema, and that Film was now standard just because somebody changed the lead article without discussion. JW 08:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Now that nearly all the associated cats use 'film', we should stick with it (unless we want to rename them all every couple of weeks). -Splash 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename. Repeating for JW: someone(s) redirected *all* synonyms for film to article Film on the search engine. I don't know when or who, but it was done *several* months ago. Meanwhile, under Category:Culture, it remained as "Cinema" until someone else - some newbie - pointed out the inconsistency between the two entry points' terminology, and requested a name change and it was changed to Category:Film and I know there was a discussion on that. So it is now logical that all other subcategories should be brought into conformity. Of course, everything could be changed to Cinema, but then someone else would want Motion Pictures and there will never be an end to the squabbling because all these words - Film, Cinema, Motion Pictures and Movies do mean the same thing to the average person, which is who Wikipedia should be serving. That was brought out on the "Cinema by Country" debate, but then some "admin", Kbdank71, suddenly decided to remove the discussion (the same day that at least 2 posts had been made!) and shut down the debate. So much for NPOV in administration; and nothing was resolved in the Cinema by Country -> Film by Country discussion because of that and that alone. And in general, Wikipedia needs to spend more time upgrading the existing article content and adding majorly to it, as the whole Film/Cinema/Motion Picture/Movie section of Wikipedia looks like a fan site, rather than squabbling over whose "pet" word is going to dominate. Film is perfectly fine. And the "Cinema by Country" discussion should be allowed to continue, and not controlled by a partisan admin. 12.73.198.43 23:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the Cinema by Country debate was closed because it had reached the 7-day limit. But that debate didn't show that these terms were all interchangeable at all; it showed that "Film" couldn't be applied to every category that was already using "Cinema". The implication I took from that discussion was that "Cinema" might be a more appropriate term than "Film" for the broader categories. Despite what you say about the category change from Cinema to Film, there's no discussion page on the category itself so I don't know where this was discussed. "Cinema" is an umbrella term and can be applied to subjects where the word "Film" can't, like national cinemas. It's not just a case of squabbling over "pet" words; I had no particular interest in what the lead article was called, but I've been working on the Cinema by Country articles and I know these categories lose their meaning when an attempt is made to force the word "Film" on them.JW 12:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Cinema by country discussion was obliterated because of "no concensus" per Kbdan71, even though 2-3 people were actively discussing whether to change or not. The debate showed or did not show Film and Cinema as interchangeable only depending on which side of the debate one was standing: that was under discussion when we were so rudely interrupted. About half and half had voted keep & rename, and that was from less than 10 people, so it was a draw but hardly a concensus since the vast majority were not involving themselves. Which seems to me to be saying, "We don't care; it's all the same to us". Both Cinema and Film are rather hoity-toity, but if you read the Film article, it is very plain the author is talking about the art form, the medium, the artists and the industry all under that term as umbrella, and it works out fine that way, setting it up as the default term. The issue now is one of making the term consistent across the rest of the Wikipedia. Sorry if you missed prior discussions, but I must assume the previous changes were all made according to the rules, and was here when the header under Culture was up for discussion to change from Cinema to Film, on the grounds of it needing to be made consistent with the search engine redirects to Film as the introductory article for the topic. Obfuscate all you might, it doesn't wash that any of the prior changes were done by hackers: you simply missed out that the changes had been made, and must not have even noticed them after the fact for some months, which makes me wonder why your sudden interest in, so to speak, closing the barn door after most of the horses have already run off. 12.73.195.42 19:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

PS - If you'll look in the archives of this section for 17 June 2005, you will find the discussion of Change Category:Cinema to Category:Film stored right there. 7 people participated (including myself), 6 favoring the change and one opposed. Where you were, I cannot say. 12.73.196.53 22:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember claiming that the changes had been made by hackers. I seem to remember I did read the category rename in the archives and the point was that it wasn't actually discussed at all. It was just another "Film is now the default term so everything should be called film" argument. No thought was given to what the effect would be on categories, sub-cats and articles down the line. No doubt I missed it because not everyone devotes their entire life to WP.

If you read my previous post you would see I already explained why I became interested in the rename; I had been working on the Cinema by Country articles and was alarmed that a clumsy, unworkable title was going to be forced on them. The point about that debate was that nobody could suggest workable alternatives that used "Film" instead of "Cinema". The people who were saying rename were not all arguing for the same thing, many were saying don't rename the sub-categories, because "Film in France" or whatever wouldn't work. This was my concern and it still hasn't been addressed and no discussion of the implications has really taken place. No-one ever asked if changing all the other categories and articles to "film" would actually work. Whatever you do now, you can't standardise every article to "film", because in some cases it just doesn't work. JW 23:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 11:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This category was recently made into an orphan because it was replaced by Category:Final Fantasy minigames. Because of this, Category:Final Fantasy subgames will no longer be used, and therefore shall be deleted. --ZeWrestler 16:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename Saddened as I am by the existence of such a category, I agree with the nom. siafu 22:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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