Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 1

September 1

Category:Playboy magazine covers

All the articles and magazine covers in this category are in violation of WP:FU and WP:NFCC.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Playboy_Magazine_Covers for the discussion on WP:ANI that took place today.

Tovojolo 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Your problems with the images, which I am sympathetic to, really cover the just the images themselves. I don't think merely deleting the category will help, & I am doubtful you can get enough images deleted to make the category too small to survive. Johnbod 18:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:People from Upland, California

Category:People from Upland, California - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Absurd category of one. There are no parallel city categories within all of California. Feralfeline 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Military dictatorships in Latin America films

Category:Military dictatorships in Latin America films - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Renomination. This category should be renamed to 'Films depicting Latin American military dictatorships ', because the current category is misleading. Not all movies are from Latin America.Evenfiel 04:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-creationism

Category:Anti-creationism - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Renomination. See here [1].

None of my concerns about the POV pushing nature of this category have been addressed. No actual counterargument was actually presented.

1. This is not a "field of study".
2. There is no organised specifically titled "anti-creationist movement" c.f intelligent design movement
3. Not cohesive. The articles included in this article are a motley bunch of miscelleneous persons/organisations/events/weblogs that fit one or a combination of
   • promote science
   • promote evolution
   • dismissive of pseudoscience
   • dismissive of creationism (really the onlycriteria that would be used, but all of these somewhat overlap, influence each other)

1. • there is no clear criteria for what belongs in this category
   • It does not assist in navigation
2. Blatantly POV
   • attempting to portray what exactly is "anti-creationist" is POV, is it being against creationists, all of them, YECs, OECs, IDists, some combinations, all of the above? is it simply being rational? is it being scientific? is it promoting evolution?
3. Very geo-centric. Almost all (bar Dawkins) are US-based entities
4. Simply not needed. The closest thing to an anti-creationist movement in the world is the ubiquitous science movement, which already has its own very organised Category

I would please ask any administrator who closes this debate to consider that consensus is not always right, and additionally expect anyone contributing to this debate to actually address these concerns, rather than automatically dismiss them.

I will notify all editors involved in the previous debate, and those who have edited the category.

ZayZayEM 02:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Consensus may not always be right, but as long as it does not ignore precedents, it will generally be used. The strength of arguments from the editors may also be considered. Vegaswikian 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per last debate, to which I did not contribute. Category:Science is hardly a substitute. Possibly rename to something like Category:Anti-Creationist activism to avoid the appearance of categorisation by opinion. I don't understand what the supposed NPOV issue is. The category could easily be expanded - where are Stephen Jay Gould, Clarence Darrow etc (though I don't think the category should cover the C19)? Johnbod 12:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: if every scientist, scientific (or pro-science) organisation or association, etc that has explicitly opposed creationism (including intelligent design), or the teaching thereof, or supported evolution, were to be included (i.e. if all articles that could be legitimately so categorised, were thus categorised), the category would become unmanageably large. Taken to an extreme, the category could even include the First Amendment, and the courts (including SCOTUS) that have struck down pro-Creationism laws because of it. Hrafn42 18:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep as a useful and appropriate subcategory of Category:Evolutionary Biology which already has too many articles directly in it. Hmains 18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rename per Johnbod's argument. It should be used for people/concepts specifically geared towards debunking/mocking the two movements. Substituting it with the Science category is a misrepresentation of the creationist and ID movements. They disagree with commonly accepted historical/origins models, but one would be hard pressed to find any who disbelieve in gravity, chemistry, mathematics, a spheroid earth, fossils, ect.[2] Indeed, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein believed in one form of Creator or another. Neither do many of them currently deny the existence of DNA, geologic layers, speciation, great distances between stars, ect. ansersingenesis.org has many certified scientists in association with them.[3] The disagreement is, again, their explanation of how it got here, and the only way to be absolutely sure is if one could use a time machine. The second best thing is an eyewitness account, which is something the creationists claim to have. Finally, one can conduct scientific experiments in the present to determine what could have happened in the past, but the most that does is find a minimum range of what could have happened in the past, and does not rule out one time events or the existence of variables outside the range of the experiment. As a final note, I would like to see the category description changed so as not to be automatically biased against creationism and ID. See my comment for an explanation. --Zephyr Axiom 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Coptic abstinence

Category:Coptic abstinence - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: 2 of the articles in this category don't mention the diet or Coptic abstinence. The "main" article is a redirect to Fasting and Abstinence of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. So, this category is basically for a single article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Andrew c ^[talk] 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Should all be covered in the articles. Johnbod 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Category Târgu Mureş

Hi, The city name was incorrectly introduced. In Romania, after the 1993 ortographic reform the character 'î' became 'â', excluding names, such as Tîrgu Mureş. The names in Romania can be changed only if appers in the Official Monitor of Romania, which is a very complicated situation, all ID cards, driving licenses and official papers/tables have to be replaced. So please help me, if category could be renamed to Tîrgu Mureş, the redirects i will organize myself. thank you Elmao 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)