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 13:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deprecated - template is now redirected to more inclusive Category:Industry stubs. Grutness...wha? 21:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Supportℬastique▼^talk
• COMMENT I don't see the equivalency between Engineering and Industry. I see some overlap, but not total. 132.205.45.148 17:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 13:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a category of unrelated people who share a surname? How can this possibly be useful to anyone? --Polynova 17:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I created it and stand by it. There is precedent here: Category:People by surname.--StAkAr Karnak 21:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To further explain why I nominated this category for deletion, I came across it from the Peter Lynch page and when I saw the category, I just assumed that Peter Lynch must be a member of some famous family — either that, or he has something to do with lynching. I should have included all similar surname categories in this delete vote as I'm equally opposed to all of them. I have no problem with family categories like Category:Bush family or Category:DuPont. --Polynova 20:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not essential enough to form a category. Category:People by surname isn't a precedent, because it could have merely articles about surnames. -Hapsiainen 22:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Retain. But there is a precedent--and they're not articles just about surnames (go look at it.) ℬastique▼^talk
  • I was imprecise. The articles in Category:People by surname have lists of people with certain surnames. The contents of this category could be moved to a such list. And there is also List of people by name: Ly. -Hapsiainen 22:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: But what about the categories in Category:People by surname? Are we going to delete all the others of them as well? Grutness...wha? 14:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likely, if deleting this category is accepted. Some of them could be merged, though, such as Category:Reagan to Category:Reagan family (political family, not any Reagans). But listifying categories is just as easy as creating them and filling them with articles. Actually it is easier, because you don't have to look for articles any more. -Hapsiainen 17:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or listify. Just because other articles share the same characteristic doesn't make it a desirable one. Radiant_* 07:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added the articles in the category to Lynch (surname). -Hapsiainen 18:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why not? SchmuckyTheCat 02:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Categorization:

"Questions to ask to know if a category is the appropriate tool:

• Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then a category is probably inappropriate."

The subject of the category is the surname, and it isn't discussed in the biographies. I agree that categories are easier to keep up-to date than lists, but sometimes they just clutter up the bottom of the article. Such is the case now. -Hapsiainen 19:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Although this is a pretty useless category It only has 46 articles in it which doesn't clutter things up too much. Therefor I dont see much point in deleting it at the moment. User:Dowew May 28th 2005. - Now that I have though about it and read other people's comment I change my vote to delete - this category serves no purpose User:Dowew May 30th, 2005.
• Delete a category containing a particularly notable lynch family I would keep, but a bunch of unrelated lynches, I don't see how they need to be grouped together. --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The relation between all of these articles is coincidental. Therefore, the chances of anyone finding this page useful is slim to none. --InShaneee 04:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Leaving aside notions of these people being related or not, its still a useful category with serval well-written informatitive articles. What is useless to one person is very useful to another. Fergananim May 30th 2005.
• Delete or listify. Postdlf 17:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 13:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that this category is redundant, and also that it is an area too poorly defined to be properly categorised. As its creator, can I ask for a speedy delete on a category? Hiding 17:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hiding generously just stated my arguments for me. The distinction between a "graphic novelist" and a "comic book creator" (whether writer and/or artist) is highly subjective (and arguably meaningless), because so many graphic novels are serialised as monthly comic books. Tverbeek 18:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - SoM 18:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ℬastique▼^talk
• Delete - Considering that Mark Twain and Danielle Steel are both placed in Category:American novelists, I don't think we have any basis for distinguishing Eddie Campbell from John Byrne with categories. We may eventually get things to a point where we can categorize members of certain "movements" in comics history - Adrian Tomine, Jeffrey Brown, and Chester Brown, for example - but that's a different matter, based on real criteria like chronology and style. The only difference between being called a "comics creator" and a "graphic novelist" is that the latter carries connotations of maturity and sophistication, and it's not our place to segregate the mature and sophisticated from the im- and the un-. -leigh (φθόγγος) 16:29, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the term graphic novel does not have a substantially different meaning from comic, except as marketing gimmick. Radiant_* 08:55, May 27, 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 13:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Entire catagory...for two people. I'd imagine the user confused this with a disambig (though he seems to have been to the disambig in question) --InShaneee 17:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's just a misplaced disambig if you ask me. --Hoovernj 21:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ℬastique▼^talk
• Delete. Another surname category. -Hapsiainen 19:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Can you just remove the deletion tag? This is a bad-faith nomination. Why else do we have the "People by surname" category for? "Another surname category" is not an argument. It is not a disambiguation, it is a new surname category, which is perfectly useful. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read the discussion in Category:Lynch deletion candidate paragraph. I don't want to repeat it any more. -Hapsiainen 08:04, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and please keep the tag. We don't generally do categories of people by surname, because it really isn't an informative classification. Radiant_* 21:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 17:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 to Category:Airports of Yukon --Kbdank71 13:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Renamed to Category:Airports of the Yukon to be consistent. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 11:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about this, but renaming to a short form does seem inconsistent with the other provincial/territorial categories: for example, we have Category:Airports of Newfoundland and Labrador and Category:Airports of Prince Edward Island rather than just "Airports of Newfoundland" and "Airports of PEI", and it would be confusing to have "Airports of the Northwest" instead of Category:Airports of the Northwest Territories. Also, the Canada Post and ISO 3166-2 code for the Yukon is "YT" (i.e. Yukon Territory) rather than, say, "YU". I agree that everyone actually says "the Yukon" rather than "the Yukon Territory", though, so I'm happy to go along with whatever the majority consensus is. David 12:20, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Keep as is. Weak keep (see below) Agree with David - the official name for the place is Yukon Territory. "The Yukon" is a more amorphous name which covers pretty much the same area, but may not exactly coincide with it (could mean the catchment area of the river, for instance). "Yukon Territory" makes it clear that we are talking about the Canadian administrative region and areas within its well-defined boundaries. Grutness...wha? 12:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC) see below.[reply]
• Comment. I don't have a preference either way, but if you change it to "Yukon Territory", you may want to look at everything under Category:Yukon. I can't see any other articles or categories that use "Yukon Territory" - though there is a mix of "Yukon" and "the Yukon". --Azkar 16:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if that's the way Wikipedia does it, I'm swayed a little. I've made that keep a weak one, but I'm still (marginally) in favour of the correct name being used. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a little bit of digging, because I was curious. When I was in school, it was always referred to as the Yukon Territory, but there's very little evidence of that usage in Wikipedia. At Talk:Yukon someone claimed that the government officially changed the name to Yukon "a few years ago." I visited the Yukon government's website (http://www.gov.yk.ca), and they refer to themselves as the Yukon, with zero reference to ever being called the Yukon Territory (I tried looking around to see if there was a date for this change). So .. in light of this, I'm casting a vote in favour of renaming. --Azkar 02:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And because it bothered me that I didn't have a specific reference .. it was 2002 that the government passed a bill completely replacing the Yukon Act and ammending a whole slew of other laws to change all instances of "Yukon Territory" to "Yukon" [1]. --Azkar 03:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, I withdraw my vote of keep and am prepared to go with the flow (which seems to be the renaming). Grutness...wha? 13:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I notice that the 2002 Yukon Act uses "Yukon Territory" in section titles, but "Yukon" (never "the Yukon") mostly in the text body. The territorial government prefers "Yukon" (again, not "the Yukon"), probably to deemphasise the fact that it's a territory rather than a province. Given that, I suggest either keeping the category name the way it is (which seems to be the legal name), or changing it to Category:Airports of Yukon (which sounds strange, but seems to be the way the Yukon government prefers it). David 12:20, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
          • The section titles I see are things like "Legislature of Yukon", "Supreme Court of Yukon", etc., so I'm not sure where you're seeing Yukon Territory. I did a search on the whole document and the only instances of "Yukon Territory" in the bill are where they're replacing "Yukon Territory" with "Yukon". I will agree, however, that this should be Category:Airports of Yukon, as Yukon is the correct name of the territory. I believe "the Yukon" is more correct as a geographical designation (much like "the prairies", "the Canadian shield", "the BC interior", etc.). I saw the territorial government use "the Yukon" in some of the pages on the history of the territory. --Azkar 14:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Airports of Yukon. If the official name is "Yukon", then there is no need for the "the". For example, you wouldn't say "Airports of the Ontario". --Kbdank71 17:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• SUPPORT, matches Category:Airports of Nunavut of Nunavut Territory. 132.205.45.148 17:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 13:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate of Category:Central business districts , nothing inside it. SimonLyall 10:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep --Kbdank71 13:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pejorative and POV title. At the very least, this category should be renamed. Personally, though, I think we should delete it. This category is a haphazard mix of articles on topics ranging from creationism to alternative medicine to divination. I honestly don't think these articles need to be categorized to gether. They all belong to appropriate category structures already. Is there any reason we need to have Feng Shui and numerology in the same category? --Azkar 00:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Pseudoscience" is the most NPOV term possible for fields which purport to have scientific bases but which the scientific community rejects. That is why Feng Shui and numerology are in the same category. Both purport to affect the real world through mechanisms that science does not recognize. It is a very useful category. Note that the addition of the Category:Eugenics to the Pseudoscience category recently underwent a careful discussion here with the conclusion that it was the correct designation based upon numerous citations. -Willmcw 02:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This category is obviously necessary. --brian0918™ 03:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Only a quack would vote delete on this. SchmuckyTheCat 05:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ad hominem fallacy. --Blackcats 20:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (Category:Ideas labeled as pseudoscience alternatively Delete. Reasons: 1. Term "scientific community" is itself POV, since it automatically excludes whoever is accused of pseudoscience. 2. The article will always have a geographical bias, what is pseudoscience in USA might be considered simply common sense in Niger and Hong Kong, and if the category would be called Category:Common sense i'm sure it would be deleted. 3. "Only a quack would vote delete on this." Comments like that prove that there is a strong attachment to the subject in persons who add articles to this cat, making their arguments.... well "pseudoscientific". Beta m (talk)
  • 1. The NPOV policy does not say "exclude all POVs", it more practically means "attribute POVs accordingly". So something being the scientific community's POV, as this is clearly labeled, is not at all outside the NPOV policy, so long as it is properly labeled as such. 2. Presumably mainstream scientists in Niger and Hong Kong are of more or less the same frame of mind as mainstream scientists in the USA. The term "pseudoscience" is one applied by mainstream scientists. "Common sense" is generally an appeal to the POV of a different community. 3. The fact that people consider this to be a nomination in bad faith has nothing to do with whether or not it is useful category. The fact that people have attachments to things do not make their opinions "pseudoscientific". You might consider reading what exactly the definition of "pseudoscience" generally is in this case before applying it haphazardly; I don't think you understand the basics of it. --Fastfission 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, it is ridiculous for me to start arguing the definition of pseudoscience here. I was just pointing out that the definition (no matter what it is) would fall in the category of power word, and in my opinion is an opinion and nothing else. Can we have a category Category:Things that Beta_M considers to be unproven, that will also be NPOV, since i can prove that i do in fact consider some things to be unproven. Beta m (talk)
• Keep. What Willmcw said above. Atlant 11:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pseudoscience is a well-defined term. --Ryano 11:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just be vigilant about only adding those "fields which purport to have scientific bases but which the scientific community rejects." --♥ «Charles A. L.» 12:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Willmcw. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:06, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Willmcw summed it up well. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain ℬastique▼^talk
• Keep. The description clearly explains that this category is a sociological description and is not intended to reflect on whether the subjects within actually "are" pseudoscience (or whether there is such a thing as pseudoscience). Whether individual articles (i.e. Feng Shui) belong in this category is a per-article discussion (such as the one done on the previously cited page for Eugenics) and has nothing to do with the usefulness or validity category itself. --Fastfission 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --U.U. 07:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see the usefulness of this category. "I need something that isn't science. And then something else that also isn't science but has nothing to do with the first thing." Nah, I don't get it. --Kbdank71 17:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not "something that isn't science". It is a set of purportedly scientific practices which are not considered by the scientific community as being "science" but are nonetheless believed in by a number of people. The grouping is not arbitrary and can be quite useful. For example, one might want to inquire about what sorts of activities are not sanctioned by scientists. Or the psychology of those who would follow such activities. And so forth. Whether or not you would ask any of those questions is beside the point; it is easy to imagine possible reasons for looking at these sorts of groupings. --Fastfission 18:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not considered by the scientific community as being "science" sounds strangely similar to "something that isn't science", IMO. Regardless, though, I still don't see the usefulness. It's easier for me to imagine people wanting to know what is considered science by the scientific community. --Kbdank71 18:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If for no other reason than to avoid endless argument over which article should be labled "pseudoscience." Any article can include a discussion of the fact that much of the "scientific community brands it as such. But it's not Wikipedia's job to make such judgements or do such branding. Present all the objective facts and let the people decide for themselves. Blackcats 20:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the term is so well recognized that qualifying it is more POV than not. --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename as "alleged pseudoscience". AndyCapp 11:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Might be a useful category for things that really are pseudoscience (such as astrology and numerology), but I could see this category quickly turning into a magnet for POV wars over some peoples' pet ideas about "junk science." Kaibabsquirrel 20:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Blackcats. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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