Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 11 |
==July 11==
=== ===
no consensus (keep) -- 12:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Rename this as 18:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nominator; this is precisely what they are. - 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 00:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep, fine as is. 08:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
merge -- 12:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This category contains two articles, one of which is already in 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. 22:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC) *Merge, I agree. 19:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Merge, per nominator: that definition of pseduophysics is taken from the cat to merge to. - 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *I believe the correct term is 09:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC) **I agree. 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
*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. 00:17, 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. 07:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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.
*[http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ss5.html Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity]
::I didn t delete anything, though it s possible there was an edit conflict (you can see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2005_July_11&diff=18798175&oldid=18787155 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 15:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. 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 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. 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... 17:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
:*Two clicks would have gotten you here: [http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,20663,00.html] 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). -- 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. 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. -- 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. 17:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::Seeing as this discussion is about 17:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
::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 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. -- 18:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
merge -- 12:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that this cat should be merged with its parent, 14:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC) :Merge. No meaningful distinction. -- 03:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Merge. Not particularly useful/redundant. 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. 08:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
no consensus (keep) -- 12:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Redundant with July 4, 2005 00:21 (UTC)
*Merge & rename both to 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. 4 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 12:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Since the definition of a major programming language is arbitrary, this is redundant with 12:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 12:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The Super 12 10:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete empty and redundant per nominator. - 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete totally non-controversial. 20:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 11:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism -- 06:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Speedy as an attack category. Refreshing to see that kind of thing here rather than in VfD! - 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Undelete HEY! this was a legitimate category for Hong Kong politicians-turned-porn stars! ;) -- 23:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC) *HEY, will someone get the obscenity off the boards. 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. 00:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
no consensus (keep) -- 12:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Has only 1 article and likely to stay that way. Superfluous. Separate category 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. 22:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
rename -- 12:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Not a word. Use psychokinetics instead. - 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 / telekinesis ... so would this be some other word (they are a sort of psychic) ; I propose 09:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Google confirms that psychokinetic is in fact the word most used. Support Sean s suggestion. 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC) **COMMENT Google results show that psychokinetics means acts of psychokinesis , not a person who performs such acts 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 23:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC) *OBJECT, should be renamed to 19:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
rename -- 12:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Religious what 03:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename. Chinese language and cultual ! 00:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Rename , etc. ===
rename -- 11:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This is more consistent with the custom of categorizing articles as Compositions by Foo , rather than Foo Compositions . For more information, see 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Excellent idea. 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC) *Rename all. -- 16:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Three more:
04:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename those also. -- 17:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename. 20:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename all. 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. 00:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)=== ===
delete -- 11:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Redundant with 02:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
*Delete per Jonel. Olympic athletes at the ... Olympics is also redundantly titled. 02:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Redundant category, redundant title. 00:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Rename ===
rename -- 11:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This category was recently orphaned by mistake. In the mean time 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. 02:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename. 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
*Keep - As I thought I had pointed out in the 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. - 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. 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). - 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename. Repeating for JW: someone(s) redirected *all* synonyms for film to article 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. 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 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. 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. 23:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Rename ===
delete -- 11:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This category was recently made into an orphan because it was replaced by 16:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)|
|