Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 5: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:56, 6 July 2007 editHrafn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,179 edits →Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"← Previous edit Revision as of 09:20, 6 July 2007 edit undoHrafn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,179 edits →Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"Next edit →
Line 205: Line 205:
**'''Comment''' - It is not always necessary to create a category as a solution to removing a lengthy list from an article. Adding these names to a new article entitled ] would probably be more appropriate than this category. ] 11:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) **'''Comment''' - It is not always necessary to create a category as a solution to removing a lengthy list from an article. Adding these names to a new article entitled ] would probably be more appropriate than this category. ] 11:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
***'''Comment''': A list was one of the options contemplated when the formation of a category was originally discussed. Is there some rule that ''requires'' the use of a list in preference to a category, where feasible? ] 04:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC) ***'''Comment''': A list was one of the options contemplated when the formation of a category was originally discussed. Is there some rule that ''requires'' the use of a list in preference to a category, where feasible? ] 04:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
****'''Comment''' - No actual hard-set rule has been set, although some guidelines have been written up at ] and ]. Given that this signatories list is a short, finite list and that this may be one of many expressions of support for the intelligent design movement by these people, then creating a list just seems more appropriate. ] 07:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) ****'''Comment''' - No actual hard-set rule has been set, although some guidelines have been written up at ] and ]. Given that this signatories list is a short, finite list and that this may be one of many expressions of support for the intelligent design movement by these people, then creating a list just seems more appropriate. ] 07:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
******'''Comment''': Then what "guidelines" does this category violate? The actual list of signatories is 700+ long and increasing, but most of its membership aren't notable so don't have articles, so aren't included in the category, which therefore just includes the notable ones (notable generally for being notorious fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists and/or cranks). And no, it is not "one of many expressions of support for the intelligent design movement by these people," it is one of the main ] and in ]. ] 09:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Not category material. The list isn't that long, and if you list the names left to right, rather than one per line, it will only take up about five or six lines. ] 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Not category material. The list isn't that long, and if you list the names left to right, rather than one per line, it will only take up about five or six lines. ] 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete/listify''' per the Dr. Categories are for the most notable aspects of a person's life/career. Signing onto this document isn't notable enough for categorization, however retaining this information in an independent list could be beneficial.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete/listify''' per the Dr. Categories are for the most notable aspects of a person's life/career. Signing onto this document isn't notable enough for categorization, however retaining this information in an independent list could be beneficial.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:20, 6 July 2007

< July 4 July 6 >

July 5

Category:Chicago politicians

Propose renaming Category:Chicago politicians to Category:Politicians from Chicago
Nominator's rationale: Rename: Going to be cleaning up the Category:People from Chicago by sorting them. I think this current category name is too narrow, and should be changed to encompass all politicians who are from Chicago no matter where they live now. Kranar drogin 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This should not be changed in isolation. It goes against the whole way that politicians are organised at the local level, which is by where they served/represented, not by place of origin. Nathanian 23:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The reason I would like to make it broader, is rather lumping everyone into a huge Category like People from Chicago, it would be better to seperate them, especially politicians. Right now you have to go through page after page of people to find who/what you are looking for.--Kranar drogin 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Membership in this category would not be obvious in the article since most of the entries would not be Chicago politicians. Being a politician in some location is a trivial intersection with Chicago. If expanded and this person is a politician and an actor and a musician and a porn star we would also have to add 3 more categories for this person per city where they lived. Given the current problems with too many categories in many people articles, this seems like a bad direction to take. Vegaswikian 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As a side note, if kept, someone will need to cleanup all of the articles added here that are not politicians in Chicago. I suspect this is not something that a bot can handle. Don't know how many right now, but I know that some were changed. They need to be changed back to Category:People from Chicago. Vegaswikian 05:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Foo politicians should be politicians working in Foo (serving, trying to get elected, what have you) not those merely born, raised, or schooled there or otherwise not in the Foo political scene. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lists of journalists

Category:Lists of journalists - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete Lightly-populated category of cruft, and each of the individual entries should be prod'd or translated into their own categories instead of as list pages. THF 23:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for as long as there are at least two lists of journalists that have not been deleted. And three of the ones currently in the category (which are not necessarily the only ones that exist) have not even been nominated for deletion. Nathanian 23:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nathanian. You will find that the general feeling here is to turn categories into lists, not the other way around. Johnbod 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eponymous band categories - W

Category:W.A.S.P. - Template:Lc1
Category:The Waboritas - Template:Lc1
Category:Warrant (American band) - Template:Lc1
Category:The Waterboys - Template:Lc1
Category:The Wedding Present - Template:Lc1
Category:Westlife - Template:Lc1
Category:Wham! - Template:Lc1
Category:What Is This? - Template:Lc1
Category:White Lion - Template:Lc1
Category:White Tiger (band) - Template:Lc1
Category:White Zombie - Template:Lc1
Category:Barry White - Template:Lc1
Category:Whitesnake - Template:Lc1
Category:The Wiggles - Template:Lc1
Category:Wild Horses (American band) - Template:Lc1
Category:Wild Horses (British band) - Template:Lc1
Category:Robbie Williams - Template:Lc1
Category:Stevie Wonder - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete all - Eponymous overcategorization. Pursuant to June 29 discussion, these categories consist of nothing but subcategories for albums and songs, in some cases members, and the article for the band and rarely a discography or similar article. Categories are not needed. Otto4711 21:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all those with at least two subcategories, as those subcategories should be readily accessible in one place to facilitate navigation. Nathanian 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As has been clearly established by what must by now be deletions in the hundreds, having the subcategories does not warrant the category. Close to 100 categories for TV shows have been deleted despite having character and episode subcats. Dozens of musician categories have been deleted despite having album and song subcats. The subcategories are properly categorized in album by artist, song by artist and member by band category structures and the material within them is reachable through the artist's article. Simplisticly counting subcats in no way addresses WP:OC and, had you reviewed the links in the nomination, you would have seen that having the subcats has been raised and was not deemed reason enough for the categories. Otto4711 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Buses in Hong Kong

Propose renaming Category:Buses in Hong Kong to Category:Bus transport in Hong Kong
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match form for other by country categories. Vegaswikian 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Bus companies

Propose renaming Category:Bus companies to Category:Bus operating companies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current title is unclear as to content. Is it operators or manufactures or rebuilders or whatever? Vegaswikian 20:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters with eidetic memory

Category:Fictional characters with eidetic memory - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: No clear criteria for inclusion; entries that I recognize on here are there because of WP:OR -- no WP:RS identifies characters as having eidetic memory, rather an editor's conclusion. EEMeltonIV 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep, this category has already been put up for deletion and was subsequently kept. I'll repeat here what I said then, eidetic memory is often an important and defining characteristic for many characters currently in the category. --Philip Stevens 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - How does this category/grouping differentiate between characters whose eidetic memory is a defining characteristic and those for whom it is not? --EEMeltonIV 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Early (pre-1914) Association Football players

Propose renaming Category:Early (pre-1914) Association Football players to Category:Pre-1914 Association Football players
Nominator's rationale: Rename "Early" is redundant. Æthelwold 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Films about coal mining

Category:Films about coal mining - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Documentaries about coal-mining, maybe. But Films? Since when was October Sky about coal-mining? Extreme WP:OCAT Bulldog123 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - These types of "films about" categories do not work. The problem is that films discuss multiple subjects or that some subjects are only discussed peripherally. This leads to a problem where the category either includes any film that mentions the subject, in which case the category does not really identify the subject matter of the film very well or bring together related films, or it is used just for films where the subject is "important", in which case it suffers from subjective inclusion problems that render it useless for categorization. In this case, the category brings together any film that even peripherally mentions coal mining. (Even Billy Elliot is in this category, although at least Zoolander is not included.) It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful intersection of category:Films and Category:Coal mining. If this is deleted, are the films supposed to be added back to the latter? If they are, and the number grows (as it could), it will need to be tidied up by creating a category for... films about coal mining. So all that should be done is that any inappropriate articles should be removed. Nathanian 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Are these films about coal mining or does the plot involve coal mining? I think the latter is the case for most of the entries in the category. So their relationship to coal mining is tenuous at best. I suggest that we consider this to be films actually about the subject. Maybe as Bulldog123 suggests, rename and limit this category and all similar ones to documentaries and rename as required. Right now I'm leaning delete but open to a rename with some specificity from a new name. Vegaswikian 00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Nathanian states that this is a useful intersection of Category:Films and Category:Coal mining. I cannot believe that some of these films (Billy Elliot) would be placed in Category:Coal mining in the first place. I would support a category limited to documentaries about coal mining, but I would recommend deleting the "films" category and starting over rather than renaming this "films" category. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & because of the inherent problems with "films about": how "about" the subject must the film be, and what reliable sources have to tell us that that is what the film is really "about"? Carlossuarez46 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Films about cooking

Category:Films about cooking - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: If anyone actually believes that Chocolat and Fried Green Tomatoes are about cooking, we have a seriously problem. And aside from that, categorizing films by what they are loosely about is simply WP:OCAT. The categories would be endless. Bulldog123 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - These types of "films about" categories do not work. The problem is that films discuss multiple subjects or that some subjects are only discussed peripherally. This leads to a problem where the category either includes any film that mentions the subject, in which case the category does not really identify the subject matter of the film very well or bring together related films, or it is used just for films where the subject is "important", in which case it suffers from subjective inclusion problems that render it useless for categorization. This category therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep See comments on the previous listing. Also, there is no reason why films should not be included in several such categories if appropriate. Nathanian 23:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & see comments on previous listing. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Occupation films

Category:Occupation films - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete (though not the three subcategories). Hopelessly vague inclusion criteria; I'm all ears if someone can tell me what Top Gun, Office Space and Almost Famous have in common. PC78 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Haven't heard of "occupation film" as an entity anyway. Bulldog123 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but only use as a holdall for suitable subcategories. Remove articles and add a notice that the category should only contain subcategories. Æthelwold 17:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The name is ambiguous. Could refer to films about various occupations (which I gather it does), films about military or other occupations, films made while the filmmaker is under such an occupation, and so on. Category:Films by topic serves as an appropriate container category; this one is not needed. Otto4711 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this is about the worst film cat yet: I was expecting films about an occupation (in the sense of France early 1940s), but nooooo; this is about any film where a character has a job! Brilliant, unless the movie has characters limited to the unemployed, retired, or idle rich, it fits here somehow. Which is truly OCAT and not meaningful or defining. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. fans

Category:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Just one entry in this, hasn't been populated. Not needed and might as well be deleted. Govvy 13:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Major Doctor Who Villains

Category:Major Doctor Who Villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Doctor Who characters, or at least Rename to Category:Doctor Who villains. -- Prove It 13:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Youth Organizations of California

Category:Youth Organizations of San Diego

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of California to Category:Youth organizations based in California
Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of San Diego to Category:Youth organizations based in San Diego
Nominator's rationale: Rename, capitalization and standardization ("Based in" is prevalent for categories of organizations. Wilchett 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Live Action films based on Cartoons

Category:Live Action films based on Cartoons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Live action films based on cartoons, or Delete. -- Prove It 13:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:"A" Film Festivals

Category:"A" Film Festivals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Film festivals, as duplicate. -- Prove It 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree. This category's name is POV. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - The "A" category appears to separate "prestigious" film festivals from "other" film festivals. The problem with this approach is that it suffers from severe POV problems, as it requires editors to make subjective judgments about which festivals are the most prestigious. (Presumably, everything on Misplaced Pages is already notable anyway or else it would not be in Misplaced Pages.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge POV. There is always merit in being able to identify the leading items in Misplaced Pages's vast range of articles, and frankly the means for doing so need to be improved a lot (eg by making it possible to browse the articles in a category by number of hits or edits), but this is not an acceptable way to do it. Casperonline 15:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, clear POV. Carlossuarez46 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobic films

Category:Homophobic films - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - fatally POV. No possible objective inclusion criteria. Otto4711 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical members of the Executive Council of New Brunswick

Suggest merging Category:Historical members of the Executive Council of New Brunswick to Category:Members of the Executive Council of New Brunswick
Nominator's rationale: Merge - People are generally not sorted according to status ("alive", "dead", "retired", "active", etc.). Therefore, this category should be merged into its parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical women who lived as male

Propose renaming Category:Historical women who lived as male to Category:Women who lived as men
Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category was nominated for deletion on 28 Jun 2007 with no decision as to whether to keep or delete it. Several people commented that the category needs to be renamed if kept, but no consensus was reached on this. I suggest removing the term "historical", as this term has multiple meanings (such as "retired", or some arbitrary age, or living so many years ago). I also suggest changing "male" to "men", as this will improve the English in the title. Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I used the term "historical" is because modern "women" who live as men are called trans men and are considered men. But historically some women lived as male maybe only to get the rights and social privileges that only men had, and they were sort of radical feminists of the time. Or maybe some of them were indeed transgender males. But we'll never know today, because it was a different context back then, hence the need for this special category for historical women who lived as male.--Sonjaaa 12:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Yes, but what do "historical" and "modern" mean? What is the dividing line between the two? 1950? WWII? 1900? 1980? Is "historical" for dead people and "modern" for living people? The term "historical" needs to be defined better. I know from experience that the term has a broad range of uses here on Misplaced Pages. Just look at the other nominations of "historical" categories on this page. Dr. Submillimeter 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I do think this needs keeping seperate, per Sonjaa. Perhaps 1950 is a suitable arbitary cut-off? Johnbod 13:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom; trying to define a difference between "historical" and "modern" is impossible or just someone's POV. Carlossuarez46 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical upper houses of the United Kingdom

Category:Historical upper houses of the United Kingdom - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - In the case of Category:Historical upper houses and Category:Historical lower houses, the term "historical" is actually used as a synonym for "defunct"; see the nominations below. Category:Historical upper houses of the United Kingdom, however, contains nothing but Category:House of Lords, which is an entity that still functions as a legislative body (unless Gordon Brown has proposed some radical government changes that I am not aware of). So, "historic" in this case is not a synonym for "defunct". My best guess is that it is being used as a synonym for "old". Still, the term "historic" could cause confusion. Also, I cannot conceive of a situation where more articles would be added to this category. I recommend just deleting it, as it looks unnecessary and as the term "historic" could cause confusion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical upper houses

Propose renaming Category:Historical upper houses to Category:Defunct upper houses
Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category is for upper (governmental) houses that no longer exist. The term "defunct" communicates this much more clearly than "historic", as "historic" has multiple meanings, including "old" and "notable". The category should therefore be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical railway companies of Germany

Propose renaming Category:Historical railway companies of Germany to Category:Defunct railway companies of Germany
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" could mean many things in this context. It could be used to indicate that the railways are old, that they have received some type of "historic" designation from the German government for preservation purposes, or that the railroads are set up to take tourists on train rides in vintage (19th century) trains. In this case, "historic" is used to indicate that the railroads no longer exist as orgnaizations. I suggest using "defunct" instead of "historic", as the interpretation of "defunct" is much less ambiguous. Dr. Submillimeter 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical programming languages

Suggest merging Category:Historical programming languages to Category:Programming languages
Nominator's rationale: Merge - According to the description in Category:Historical programming languages, it contains "programming languages which are of historical interest but are not used significantly in industry or academia". The categories inclusion criteria are too subjective, as it requires editors to assess which languages are of "historical interest" and which are not "used significantly". Because of these problems, the category should be merged into its parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical lower houses

Propose renaming Category:Historical lower houses to Category:Defunct lower houses
Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category is for lower (governmental) houses that no longer exist. The term "defunct" communicates this much more clearly than "historic", as "historic" has multiple meanings, including "old" and "notable". The category should therefore be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is for signatories of a proclamation. Not defining. Æthelwold 01:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/listify - If categories were added for every proclamation that these people signed or every document that they supported, the list of categories at the bottom of each article would be very cluttered and very difficult to use for navigation. This should probably be converted into a list, possibly in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism or possibly on a separate page. Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The argument against a list of signatories in the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism article itself was that the article would get cluttered (maybe there are 30+ notable persons who signed the proclamation). There are also categories about Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors Category:Intelligent design advocates If the cat Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" is deleted, what about those? If "delete" is the consensus, then we would at least need to make a separate page. Northfox 11:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - It is not always necessary to create a category as a solution to removing a lengthy list from an article. Adding these names to a new article entitled List of signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" would probably be more appropriate than this category. Dr. Submillimeter 11:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: A list was one of the options contemplated when the formation of a category was originally discussed. Is there some rule that requires the use of a list in preference to a category, where feasible? Hrafn42 04:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment - No actual hard-set rule has been set, although some guidelines have been written up at WP:CLS and WP:OC. Given that this signatories list is a short, finite list and that this may be one of many expressions of support for the intelligent design movement by these people, then creating a list just seems more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment: Then what "guidelines" does this category violate? The actual list of signatories is 700+ long and increasing, but most of its membership aren't notable so don't have articles, so aren't included in the category, which therefore just includes the notable ones (notable generally for being notorious fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists and/or cranks). And no, it is not "one of many expressions of support for the intelligent design movement by these people," it is one of the main Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns and in Category:Discovery Institute campaigns. Hrafn42 09:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not category material. The list isn't that long, and if you list the names left to right, rather than one per line, it will only take up about five or six lines. AshbyJnr 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/listify per the Dr. Categories are for the most notable aspects of a person's life/career. Signing onto this document isn't notable enough for categorization, however retaining this information in an independent list could be beneficial.-Andrew c  17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, w/o prejudice to list of signers article. Carlossuarez46 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Alright, I've moved the names to a list, as seems to be consensus of this discussion. ornis 00:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep When the list is complete, it will have many more than 30 entries. This is being done gradually because of the effort involved. For most of these people, signing this list is one of the main things that makes them notable, because it identifies them as being a leader or prominent member of the intelligent design movement. For most of these people, that is the only reason they are notable.--Filll 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment/Listify. Filll, isn't your last point actually an argument for deleting the category? If most people are only notable because they are signatories, would this justify a whole category? I think that Ornis' idea of making a list is better. More background info about the signatories can be added easily. Information that is not covered in the original Discovery Institute list. Northfox 05:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Their anti-evolutionary/Creationist advocacy is generally what makes them notable. Membership in this category is the most easily verifiable indication of such advocacy. If you want details on an individual signatory, it is easy enough to follow the link to the signatory's article. Being in this category is also a good indication of the signatory being on the fringe of science, and is useful information on the signatory, which would be lost if the category were to be replaced by a list. Hrafn42 05:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Of the 23 signatories currently in this category, 18 have mention in their articles of Creationist and/or ID affiliation or of anti-evolutionary statements, and one further signatory has his signing explicitly mentioned in the text of his article. Of the four remaining signatories, two hold otherwise idiosyncratic views on science (argued that living creatures do not obey the second law of thermodynamics, author of an anti-global warming petition). I think this is a good indication that the petition is "defining." Hrafn42 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as Hrafn42 mentioned, signing this petition is an important piece of information about the signatories - it puts them in a small group far outside of the scientific mainstream. Signing this petition is a very strong political statement and is highly informative about the signatories. Guettarda 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete there are better ways of putting people in a category than simply whether or not they have signed a particular letter. this is enshrining the importance of the letter.It would be better to have a more generally named category, specifying the letter as one of the criteria for inclusion. DGG 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Any "generally named category" is likely to cause considerable ongoing controversy (as does anything not entirely cut-and-dry in the field of Creationism). The most likely candidate would be 'Intelligent design advocate,' but I have run into considerable disagreement in the past calling Richard Sternberg such, in spite of the fact that not only is he a signatory, but he is also a member of the ISCID & has presented at RAPID. A category with a simple, unambiguous, verifiable criteria for inclusion is best for this, IMO. Hrafn42 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Per Hrafn, Filll, and Guettarda. This is critical reference material for several articles. Orangemarlin 03:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Of the those expressing an opinion to date, those who I remember as being active on the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism parent article and/or other Creationism-related articles have been consistently in favour of keeping the article, I do not remember any of the editors in favour of deletion as being active in these areas. Odd. Hrafn42 04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The editors in favor of deletion are all people who frequently work on general category maintenance or who regularly comment on WP:CFD discussions. We have seen a lot of categories like this one. Occasionally, editors from a specific project do not realize that their categorization scheme goes against the convention used at Misplaced Pages or that their categories are poorly named. This then leads to debates like this one here at Misplaced Pages. Does this explain the disagreement? (The nature of the debate here may be comparable to the "retired NASCAR drivers" category that was merged into its parent category a few months ago. Several people from a NASCAR WikiProject protested the idea, but other WP:CFD regulars indicated that the division of people into "retired" and "active" people was against convention for Misplaced Pages in general.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: "Does this explain the disagreement?" No it does not. (1) Why was this nomination-for-deletion not notified on Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism? (2) How is this category "against the convention used at Misplaced Pages"? (3) What efforts did these "people who frequently work on general category maintenance or who regularly comment on WP:CFD discussions" go to to familiarise themselves with the place of the SDFD in the ID movement, before opining that it was "not defining" or just one of "every proclamation that these people signed" (neither characterisation strikes me as accurate)? Your comparison to NASCAR drivers seems to be way off point (beyond a somewhat patronising "we know best" implication; though I notice that there likewise, you fail to clearly identify which "convention" is being violated), which does not suggest a high understanding of the specifics of this category. Hrafn42 08:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's notable and useful, the only two criteria that matter. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pages Needing to be Archived

Propose renaming Category:Pages Needing to be Archived to Category:Talk pages needing to be archived
Nominator's rationale: I would nominate this for speedy renaming due to its capitalization, but I think the word "talk" should be added for clarity. szyslak 00:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

*Question - isn't it up to the owner of the talk page to decide whether or not to archive it? Otto4711 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)