Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6

January 6

Category:HBCU alumni

• Propose deleting Category:HBCU alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Or at the very least, turn into a container category that only has subcategories of HBCUs. There is no need to have someone in both this category and (e.g.) Category:Morehouse College alumni. I think the name should be changed as well if kept. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete His recent similar creation Category:Ivy League academics is on it's way to deletion, and yet he continues to created more categories that the same criteria apply to, so we also should topic ban this editor from creating more categories. Natureium (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - there is already Category:Alumni by historically black university or college in the United States. Oculi (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per Oculi; redundant to an existing container category. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as a duplicate of an existing category, per Oculi. Also, better to spell the name out, as in the current category, than use an acronym that may not be familiar to readers, as in the category proposed for deletion. Levivich (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Category:Alumni by historically black university or college in the United States. HBCU is a commonly used acronym. MassiveEartha (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Fictional organizations designated as terrorist

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional organizations designated as terrorist to Category:Fictional terrorist organizations

Nominator's rationale: This may be an appropriate categorization scheme, but it is in-universe to describe an organization as "designated as terrorist" rather than simply "terrorist". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Clearer scope. Designated by which authority?Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. PrussianOwl (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - part of the Category:Organizations designated as terrorist hierarchy, as in designated by a state or multinational organisation. We do it that was to at least have some minimum standard for what is a "terrorist" - otherwise you just have personal opinions that eg the US Air Force is a terrorist organisation. Yes there is a bit of a problem with in-world-ness, but that's less problematic than indiscriminate use of the terrorist word.Le Deluge (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment And which multinational organisation offers designations for fictional organizations? Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Famous animals of Huntsville, Alabama

• Propose deleting Category:Famous animals of Huntsville, Alabama

Nominator's rationale: I've tried to figure out why we have this category of famous animals from Huntsville, Alabama but there is nothing at Huntsville, Alabama that reveals a reason and no other categories of famous animals from any other location. I think Miss Baker and Lily Flagg should just be listed with the other famous individual animals at Category:Individual animals in the United States where they are already listed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

As creator of this category, I don't have a strong opinion. I created it because I found multiple instances of famous animals from Huntsville. N<3 after some years, so I can see why we would delete it. (There may be others, but I can't think of them just now.) In the end, the animals need to be categorized as famous animals AND Huntsville because of their ties to the city. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete "Famous" is to subjective to be the basis of a Wikipedia category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as a true but not a defining trait for which we categorize animals. Of trivial interest to Huntsville residents, but not realistically useful. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, but not for the reasons given by other voters. If Category:Individual animals in the United States had a significant number of Huntsville animals, this would be a common-sense way to split it up; the only problem with this category's concept (as opposed to the name) is that there isn't a significant number of animals. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Autism quackery

• Propose deleting Category:Autism quackery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-neutral categorization of organizations, methods, and people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep We already have the articles. We already describe their topic as pseudoscience and quackery. There's no non-neutrality to then group these into a category. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep

Category creator's response Quack and Quackery are already widely-used terms both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. We have pages on Quackery, Radioactive quackery and a category on Category:Quacks. My hope for this category is that it will provide something that's specifically about Autism while also covering quacks, quack treatments and the side effects of / damage from those treatments. JoBrodie (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep It is useful to flag articles as explicitly addressing quackery and misinformation as it relates to autism because there are a number of harmful interventions specifically targeting the condition. Putting them in a category makes them easier to find. Seantellis (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep but rename I don't know what a better name would be, but I'm sure we could find something that seems less POV. Natureium (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Category:Autism pseudoscience, aligned with the name of its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep It's a useful page to list the various dubious treatments out there that many fall prey to - autism is an area that quacks are very prone to try to take advantage of. I'm sure the list could be expanded - there are lots of them out there. Zeno27 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Category:Autism pseudoscience. Quackery is too informal. Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Rename as Category:Autism-related pseudoscience. "Quackery" sounds opinionated. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

'Quack' has a long and robust pedigree (see adjacent image). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• • I suppose Autism pseudoscience or Autism-related pseudoscience could work if most people consider them to be more neutral than Autism quackery so perhaps that's the solution. However 'pseudoscience' is also an opinionated value judgment (ie it's not science) so ... not sure. We have a Quackery page which suggests its perceived informality isn't all that problematic, and plenty of people have been added to Category:Quacks. However if this brings a quick (as opposed to quack) resolution and more people are happy with it, let's change it :) JoBrodie (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience would be better as the anti-vaccination causes autism issue is discussed there in a paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Clear category name. Quackery is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices, and unfortunately autism is a topic that attracts numerous quacks. Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as non-defining, even if "quackery" is verifiable. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete; it's grossly non-neutral, as is "pseudoscience" as well. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep but remove inflammatory wording if your goal is to help parents make the right decisions. Someone who is considering using the quackery, well, let's just say we ALL can be fooled if we are in a fragile state, which newly diagnosed children's parents are, will automatically be threatened by inflammatory wording and just dig in deeper. It's human nature, in'nt it? It's important to reach those who can be reached. Just my 2 cents. Jrbwalk (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Jrbwalk
• Keep and I would prefer renaming to Category:Autism pseudoscience. Neutrality is not about never saying anything bad, but about reporting (in this case) scientific consensus, and in these cases we are talking about ideas which are contrary to medical science. "Pseudoscience" and "quackery" are both accurate terms for this. It's also definitely a defining category (take doTerra, which marketed its main product as an autism treatment). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, or rename as Category:Autism pseudoscience.

The use of the pejorative term "quackery" is a blatant breach of WP:NPOV. It is an emotive term designed to stigmatise, and this sort of partisan terminology would not be tolerated in any other topic area. We do not, for example have a Category:Corporate Democrats, Category:Loony left, [[:Category:Trumptards] or any other such stigmatising categories.

Where reliable sources explicitly describe a topic as "pseudoscience", then that term may be used if WP:WEIGHT supports it. I'm not happy about the way that the term "pseudoscience" is applied to work which is merely disproven or invalidated, rather than to work which does not use the scientific method. But the use of "quack" is part of a quest by some editors for overtly partisan labelling which has no place in an NPOV encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well obviously I prefer renaming to deleting (I am the category's creator) but since WP already has both an article and a category called Quackery or Quacks I'm not sure what the NPOV objection is (or how the presumed POV objections were resolved for those pages, which now seem to be reasonably uncontroversial). If NPOV is a problem in this area then how is it that other people have been categorised as quacks? There are loads of people there, presumably being stigmatised.

Incientally I think this discussion arose after I applied the category to Jenny McCarthy (there were then a couple of reverts) - she definitely promotes autism quackery, or autism pseudoscience if you prefer that term, though is not herself a quack (so can't be categorised as Category:Quacks. Her autism activism makes up a big chunk on her page and I think the overall page should have either Autism quackery or Autism pseudoscience as a category. Her ideas that vaccines cause autism, or that she has cured her son of autism are wrong - her views on this would seem to be unambiguously quackish and pseudoscientific. (Have added a P to BrownHairedGirl's preceding comment WP:NOV to read WP:NPOV as it was redirecting to a page about novels) JoBrodie (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Shinty stadiums

• Propose renaming Category:Shinty stadiums to Category:Shinty venues

Nominator's rationale: Shinty is an amateur, community-based sport and the grounds are largely undeveloped fields, so "stadiums" seems an ill-fitting description. The change would give consistency with the parent category, Category:Sports venues in Scotland. Jellyman (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Few (if any) shinty grounds qualify as a stadium, i.e. a playing area partly or completely surrounded by a tiered structure . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Bridges by city

• Propose merging Category:Bridges in Astana to Category:Buildings and structures in Astana
• Propose merging Category:Bridges in Gdańsk‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Gdańsk‎
• Propose merging Category:Bridges in Incheon to Category:Buildings and structures in Incheon
• Propose merging Category:Bridges in Lisbon to Category:Buildings and structures in Lisbon
• Propose merging Category:Bridges in Maastricht to Category:Buildings and structures in Maastricht and Category:Bridges in Limburg (Netherlands)
• Propose merging Category:Bridges in Nijmegen to Category:Buildings and structures in Nijmegen and Category:Bridges in Gelderland

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only 1 or 2 articles about bridges in these cities. A merge to "bridges in country" is not needed because all articles about bridges are already in a "type of bridge in country" category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".

I don't see any of these categories fitting that definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• WP:SMALLCAT provides two contradictory criteria, in the second line it says "no realistic potential for growth" which is in my view considerably more relaxing than "by their very definition". The "by their very definition" clause can nearly always be appealed to and it we would literally stick to it it would in practice imply that we would abolish WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Churches by city (United States)

• Propose merging Category:Churches in Camden, New Jersey to Category:Buildings and structures in Camden, New Jersey and Category:Churches in Camden County, New Jersey
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Chicopee, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Chicopee, Massachusetts and Category:Churches in Hampden County, Massachusetts
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Covington, Kentucky to Category:Buildings and structures in Covington, Kentucky and Category:Churches in Kenton County, Kentucky
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Danbury, Connecticut to Category:Buildings and structures in Danbury, Connecticut and Category:Churches in Fairfield County, Connecticut
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Fairfield, Connecticut to Category:Buildings and structures in Fairfield, Connecticut and Category:Churches in Fairfield County, Connecticut

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the above categories only contain 1 article and/or 1 subcategory. See also this earlier nomination which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".

The nom offers no explanation of why there there might not be more notable churches in these cities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Space program(me) of Malaysia

• Propose merging Category:Space program of Malaysia to Category:Space programme of Malaysia

Nominator's rationale: We appear to have both Category:Space program of Malaysia and Category:Space programme of Malaysia. One of them is clearly a duplicate. My gut feeling is that the British spelling will be correct for Malaysia (i.e., keep "programme", and soft redirect "program"), but I bow to any advice from Malaysian editors. Grutness...wha? 09:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reverse merge - there is Angkasawan program and Category:Space program of Malaysia predates Category:Space programme of Malaysia by many years. Oculi (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to British spelling. The English version of the official website, here, uses "Programme"

• http://www.angkasa.gov.my/ uses 'program'. It uses 'programme' if one uses the UK Eng translator. Oculi (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• On that webpage, "program" is the Malay word. Translated to English, that word is "programme." UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• By that logic, Oculi, we should also change the equivalent categories for all French-speaking countries to "programme". Grutness...wha? 00:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, Malaysian news agencies tend to use the British spelling, as shown here, here, and here. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Space program of Ireland

• Propose renaming Category:Space program of Ireland to Category:Space programme of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Identical rationale to the South African category below. Grutness...wha? 09:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. https://www.eirsat1.ie/ uses programme in the first para. Oculi (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Space program of South Africa

• Propose renaming Category:Space program of South Africa to Category:Space programme of South Africa

Nominator's rationale: South Africa uses Commonwealth English, and the South African government, the South African Agency for Science and Technology Advancement, the Aeronautical Society of South Africa, and the South African National Space Agency all use the spelling "programme". Grutness...wha? 09:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Rename per above. PrussianOwl (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. All the national space program(me) articles that I can find are using the convention "DESCRIPTION space program". Unless there are a good number of articles I've not found, it's time to nominate the entire category tree for renaming. When that comes, of course this should use "programme", but it should be "South African space programme", not "Space programme of South Africa". Until then, keep it here, because it's not good to rename a page twice in short succession. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You are right @Nyttend: I've gone through all the categories and the articles support "Fooian X" by a factor of 7 to 2 (7 to 3 if you include one redirect). I'd suggest renaming those two articles and doing a group nomination. One you've done that, I'll close the current discussions (please ping me when the group nom is done). Grutness...wha? 02:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard

• Propose deleting Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete, along with all the subcatgories. 2nd nomination, but I think after nearly five years it is time to revisit this category. What good does it do to have over 41 thousand pages (and not just Articles; this cat. is a misnomer, as pages from the Draft, User, User Talk, etc. spaces get included) sitting in this category, and many more into its sub categories? What does it matter where an article came from? The previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 4#Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard; as one editor pointed out there, once the Draft namespace is up and running, this category would not be necessary. That time has come. Related categories Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard and Category:Unreviewed new articles ceased being populated and thus were deleted back in November. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Neither the previous CFD discussion nor a review of inlinks to the category (example) have revealed any use of the category. DexDor ^(talk) 10:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. The purpose of a category is either 1) to create a navigation hierarchy of page topics, enabling readers to find related pages (e.g. Category:Players of American football from California) or 2) to group together pages with similar issues (e.g. Category:Articles with too few wikilinks). This category serves neither purpose. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Not sure what purpose this category serves and its relation to the article becomes more distant with each and every edit to that article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete thoroughly useless in article space (the only use I see is that there are a lot of low-quality stubs that might be deletable); there might be a reason for it on userspace pages but I don't see one immediately; we can simply track usage of the {{Userspace draft}} template. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Almost completely useless Abote2 (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete No longer useful. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per above. PrussianOwl (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete serves no real use that I can see. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 04:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete useless. Personally, I would end marking pages as AfC submissions as well, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecesary, as the Article namespace is distinct enough as is. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)