Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 12



Category:People accused of pseudoscience

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Note that the category had been emptied already. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people accused of pseudoscience


 * Nominator's rationale: This is a near duplicate of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, which by consensus (Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1) is only a container category. There is no other category in Wikipedia of the form "People accused of..." - certainly, our BLP policy would lead us to avoid them. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not a duplicate cat. The "Advocates of pseudoscience" cat states "This is a container category, which must not include articles." The different cat is meant for articles. The other cat is a sub-category cat. StAnselm states, "it certainly shouldn't be restored to this article." However that articles states, "Hari has been criticized by scientists and others for promoting pseudoscience.[14][15][62]" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically per WP:BLP. Accusation is obviously not the same as proof; people can be falsely accused. It sounds like a rather transparent way to describe people as pseudoscientists when they do not satisfy the criteria for existing categories. This category is an invitation to inappropriate and potentially harmful categorization. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename or delete "People accused of pseudoscience" is a somewhat terrible and vague name. For example, you could arguably put the creators of the now-entirely-mainstream continental drift in there, due to early negative reaction, alongside the clearly fringe astrologers, trepanation activists, and antivaccinationists. There's too much variation. We'd be better off trying to deal with the issues in Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1, or un-containering Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. But if those two fail, this one HAS to fail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. First, it isn't clear what it means to be "accused of pseudoscience". Is this people who are accused of promoting pseudoscience, having pseudoscientific beliefs or...? Second, being accused of something is not the same as being found to be that thing or to be guilty of doing that thing - at least in western culture, where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. To categorise people who've been accused of pseudoscience is to have a category of people who haven't been found guilty of pseudoscience but who've merely been accused of it and s noted above, this category is basically a BLP violation because such categorisations - based on accusations which are vague, may be false, and which may not be proven - could be harmful. This looks like a way to label people in a negative way when those people don't fit into other labelling schemes. Ca2james (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Adam and Ca2james that "accused of" is awkward phrasing, and this clearly suffers from unclear inclusion criteria and potential BLP violations. More specific, focused categories are better. Neutralitytalk 01:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename While I really like the idea of a direct, master category of pseudoscience advocates (as opposed to the container category mentioned above), calling it 'People accused of pseudoscience" comes with a major problem which Adam has already described. Perhaps we could ease up on the specificity a bit and go with "People who advocate pseudoscience", or split it up with "Living people accused of pseudoscience," "Deceased people accused of pseudoscience" and "People falsely accused of pseudoscience". MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – the consensus in the previous cfd (upheld by drv) was that Category:Advocates of pseudoscience should be a container category, that is people should not be directly categorised as 'advocates of pseudoscience'. This category is accordingly an attempt to subvert a previous cfd. Oculi (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – You've got to be kidding. TimidGuy (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Grouping people by their critics is problematic regardless of what we name the category. There are some WP:BLP and subjectivity issues here. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a very inappropriate category according to our standards for how we present material neutrally, especially where it concerns living people. Also, preemptively delete Category:People accused of witchcraft should it ever be created, for the same reason.- MrX 11:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete -- The whole thing has a POV feel about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious badge of shame attack label. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Celebrity Big Brother contestants
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 21%23Category:Celebrity Big Brother contestants

Category:Psychological effects

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting psychological effects


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No need to merge, the one article is already in Category:Psychology lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as largely redundant to Category:Cognitive biases. Neutralitytalk 01:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Critical thinking

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting critical thinking


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, the category content is a nice collection of articles that are merely vaguely associated to critical thinking. There are very few exceptions, e.g. Center for Critical Thinking is really about critical thinking, but too little to keep the category. This center will stay in Category:Logic organizations anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep How do you define "merely vaguely associated" and what are your criteria for determining strength of association sufficient to be considered defining? Looking at, for instance, Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms, there are quite a few terms that map to articles in the category, such as bias, relevance and Socratic questioning. The SEP informal logic article discusses terms like argument and rhetoric. If topics like these are considered by reliable sources important concepts in critical thinking, then they merit inclusion in the critical thinking category. More generally, critical thinking is a school of thought and at least in the US, an educational movement, sufficiently well developed in scope and depth that it merits its own category. --Mark viking (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, the argument is not that the topic "critical thinking" is not notable. However not every notable article needs to have its own category. With respect to definingness, let's just take an example, "bias" is an error/misjudgment/prejudice, those are the type of defining characteristics of the term that justify that the article is in Category:Communication of falsehoods and Category:Prejudice and discrimination. But the fact that "bias" also happens to occur in a specific glossary is not a defining characteristic of the term. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Critical thinking is notable as an article topic but it's not clear to me what articles should be in or out. Why are the Succinctness and bias article included? This category has two problems: it's WP:SUBJECTIVE and largely WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:Logic. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete subjective, communication of falsehoods and its contents are part of critical thinking? In everyone's opinion, or subjectively to some. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The category serves the purpose of housing articles that are part of informal logic such as fallacies and argumentation that do not properly belong in any other subfield of logic such as mathematical logic. Critical thinking is, itself, more than just merely notable, but is a growing academic subject area in its own right. Please do look into the requirements that many universities and secondary schools have established, and are increasingly implementing in their curricula. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether universities and secondary schools require critical thinking, the question is why an article like Explanation belongs to this category. There aren't any reliable sources afaics that confirm that "explanation" is a form of critical thinking, or an output or an input of critical thinking. This question applies to nearly all articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - per Critical thinking. The article might possibly be considered to be more than merely adictionary definition, as suggested by the nom... - jc37 14:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (as nom) I haven't suggested anything about the article, only about the content of the category. Besides I wonder how "strong (keep)" goes together with "might possibly". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seychellois beauty pageant contestant stubs

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete and upmerge. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting seychellois beauty pageant contestant stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Yet another grossly undersized Seychelles stub category. This one has just three stubs, and the parent permcat has - believe it or not - no articles whatsoever. Delete category, upmerge template to and  Grutness...wha?  06:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/upmerge per nom. Neutralitytalk 01:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Way too specific and underutilized.- MrX 11:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge -- obviously. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/upmerge per nom. Dang, you beat me to the nomination. 18:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Grutness...wha?  01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete 2 of the 3 articles in this category are currently nominated for deletion, although the discussions have low particcipation, no one has opposed the deletions yet, so this may end up a 1 article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seychelles education stubs

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete and upmerge. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting seychelles education stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Contains just two stubs, and its permcat parent (Education in Seychelles) has fewer than 10 articles. Unlikely to get close to the 60-stub threshold for a category. Delete the category and upmerge the template to and . Grutness...wha?  05:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/upmerge per nom. Neutralitytalk 01:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seychellois media stubs

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: upmerge. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting seychellois media stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Contains one stub, and its permcat parent (Media in Seychelles) has only three articles. Gross overkill. Delete the category and upmerge the template to and . Grutness...wha?  05:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/upmerge per nom. Neutralitytalk 01:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Such a category is not needed given the number of articles that would be in the category. Per nom.- MrX 11:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge -- obviously. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nelson Island geography stubs

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete/merge. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting nelson island geography stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Substantially undersized stub category, which - given the state of the associated permcat - may never get close to the standard 60 articles for a stub category. Upmerge to . NOTE: if consensus is to keep, the category and stub template will both need renaming - Nelson Island is a disambiguation page. Grutness...wha?  05:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/upmerge per nom. Neutralitytalk 01:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge -- obviously. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the NASA Space Flight Medal

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. As stated below, contents are on a talk page in case anyone wants to listify. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the NASA Space Flight Medal
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * According to the article, NASA Space Flight Medal, in practice US astronauts automatically receive this award when they first go into space and they receive it again each time they go back into space. All of these people would already be in Category:American astronauts, one of its subcategories, or a similar category for international guests. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Spaceflight. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Listify - this would be far better as a list, possibly as part of the NASA Space Flight Medal article, than as a category. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the 54 members of the category to the talk page of the article here so that no work would be lost if someone wishes to create the list. My perception from the article is that, although I can't find a master list of recipients, there are many more. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Order of Vasco Núñez de Balboa
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete, without prejudice against creating a new category composed of just the Panamanian recipients. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Order of Vasco Núñez de Balboa


 * Propose Deleting Category:Extraordinary Grand Crosses of the Order of Vasco Núñez de Balboa
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Vasco Núñez de Balboa
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Officers of the Order of Vasco Núñez de Balboa
 * Propose Deleting Category:Commanders of the Order of Vasco Núñez de Balboa


 * Propose Deleting Category:Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero


 * Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero
 * Propose Deleting Category:Gold Collars of the Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Collars of the Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Officers of the Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * When foreign heads of state, US military leaders, or Sean Connery visit Panama they receive one of these souvenirs from the Panamanian government as part of their official welcome. Of the 57 people in these categories, 54 are foreign and only three Panamanian (1, 2, 3). I don't see how Emperor Akihito of Japan, General Tito of Yugoslavia, Queen Elizabeth II or President Eisenhower are defined by a Panamanian award. If we decide to delete these categories, the winners are already listed here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The notified AusTerrapin as the primary category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Panama. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Awards to foreigners are a form of category clutter. However, awards by a country to its own nationals, if granted sparingly are worth a category, under the exception on OCAWARD.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yet another example of the creeping nomination for deletion of categories for honours genuinely awarded for merit just because some of them are awarded to foreign dignitaries. No reason whatsoever for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question What "merit" did Prince Albert and Admiral Halsey show here, besides having an official visit? (Neither of those articles even mention Panama, outside of these awards.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I clearly said and the articles clearly say, these awards are also given to Panamanians for merit as well as foreign dignitaries for just visiting. Just because most of the people currently categorised may be in the latter group does not mean the category isn't valid. It would clearly be a defining award for Panamanians. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll concede that this award might be defining for 2 of the 3 Panamanian recipients I mentioned in the nomination (but not the president). So a reader might be interested in 2 out of 57 recipients scattered in 11 categories. You're really not concerned that this ratio takes away any navigational benefit? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. It clearly is a defining award for those Panamanians who were awarded it. The fact that it may not be defining for other recipients is irrelevant to the existence of the category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is 100% relevant. It is not defining to the President of Panama who got the award, no definingess there. Category clutter on articles should be avoided. If an award is not defining to the majority of the people we have articles on who recieved it, we should not categorize articles by receipt of the award. Cases like this is where lists can be very useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and elaborate why these two Panamanians received the order in the article text of these orders, that is relevant encyclopedic information. Having the two people virtually disappear among dozens of heads of state isn't useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no evidence that this award meets our very high bar for inclusion of award categories. They need to be defining to the recipients. No evidence that these awards are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.