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 15:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Very few countries have an entertainment category. They are little more than an extra tier to click through in the culture categories, and this one is completely empty. Delete CalJW 23:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. Rhollenton 23:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Carina22 15:18, 11 December 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 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

See also the two nominations below. While there is some sense in separating out Scottish and Welsh organisations, trying to separate English ones from British ones will achieve nothing but to create inconsistency in categorisation and confusion amongst users. Delete Rhollenton 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have struck through the votes from likely sockpuppets created after this debate was opened. Rhollenton 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David | Talk 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Carina22 15:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Is the nominator and his/her supporters actually suggesting that there is no such thing as an English organisation? There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of them.-- Mais oui! 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Madness! Why will separating English organisations from British ones going to confuse people? Telling users that England and Britain are the same will confuse them because they are not. Isn't the idea of Wiki that it should be factual and not used to promote a political agenda? wonkotsane 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Account created 21:35, 14 December 2005 and has only voted on this and related issues. Vote should be disregarded as a likely sockpuppet. Rhollenton 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) strikeout removed, note left. DES ^(talk) 18:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That is a fairly strong allegation to make. What evidence do you have? Which Wikipedia User are you alleging that this is a sockpuppet of? Unless you can bring forward some evidence, the vote should stand. Are new users not allowed to have a say?-- Mais oui! 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
      • If you read the rules you will find that such votes can be disregarded. What probability is there that even one independent new user would come to this page first, and this page only? It is extraordinarily convenient for you that two or three of them did! Rhollenton 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Wikipedia:No personal attacks: I strongly advise you to desist from that particular line of attack. Please produce some evidence that these are sockpuppets created by me, or anyone else. I very strongly deny the allegation.-- Mais oui! 09:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
          • You must appreciate that there can be no evidence expect the balance of probability. In any case, the votes should be regarded as invalid because one is unsigned and the other two were by accounts created after the vote started. I have seen votes ignored like this on articles for deletion before. I can't be certain that you are guilty, but you've been very very unlucky if unconnected parties have acted in a way which makes it look so likely that you have misbehaved. Rhollenton 17:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep To be honest if Welsh and Scots have their own categories I fil to see why having English categories is confusing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance Dragon ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 December 2005
  • Unsigned vote. Possible sockpuppet like wonkotsane above and Jamms1 below. Rhollenton 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) strikeout removed, note left. DES ^(talk) 18:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That is a fairly strong allegation to make. What evidence do you have? Which Wikipedia User are you alleging that this is a sockpuppet of? Unless you can bring forward some evidence, the vote should stand. Are new users not allowed to have a say?-- Mais oui! 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep It appears that the individuals who've nominated this category for deletion can't distinguish between English and British. What a pity.-- Jamms1
  • Account created 00:12, 15 December 2005 and has only voted on this and related issues. Vote should be disregarded as a likely sockpuppet. Rhollenton 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) strikeout removed, note left. DES ^(talk) 18:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That is a fairly strong allegation to make. What evidence do you have? Which Wikipedia User are you alleging that this is a sockpuppet of? Unless you can bring forward some evidence, the vote should stand. Are new users not allowed to have a say?-- Mais oui! 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Distiguishing between English and British is just as important as with other U.K. countries. - N (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lack of content suggest it was created to make a point rather than to be useful and it isn't useful from where I stand. Sumahoy 01:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Of course there is not much content: the cat is brand new: give Users a chance to find and use it.-- Mais oui! 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm an English nationalist, but I don't think this is a good idea. England is fundamentally different from the other parts of the UK because it is five sixths of the whole and has very few organisations which are exclusive to it. CalJW 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Are you saying that England is a synonym for the United Kingdom? Are you absolutely sure about your statement: "... (England) has very few organisations which are exclusive to it"? I consider that to be very, very, very unlikely to be true. There must be thousands, if not tens of thousands of organisations that operate within England. Maybe only a few hundred will be notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, but here is the cat ready and waiting for them.-- Mais oui! 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • There are very few national organisations in England which do not also operate elsewhere in the UK. If this category is needed, why wasn't it created much earlier but someone whose political agenda (Scottish nationalism) was less obvious. Our American/German/Japanese friends will be in a pickle if half these things end up in one category and half in another. Rhollenton 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Request for administrator assistance on this discussion I request that an administrator reviews the behaviour of User:Rhollenton on this strand. He has made a personal attack on me, and unjustly scored out the votes of three other users.-- Mais oui! 09:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have removed vote strinkeouts -- in general it is best not to strike out comments or votes other than one's own. It is fine to present evidience that the clsoer may use in deciding whether to disregard a commetn/vote, but it is better to do so as neutrally and factually as possible, and to avoid accusations, particualrly ones that the accuser cannot prove. DES ^(talk) 18:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete England is too integrated into the UK for this to be a good idea. Osomec 14:19, 18 December 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 15:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Not a good idea. England is not a separate economy and it is not legally possible for a company to be incorporated "in England". This feeble start merely threatens to create confusion in Category:Companies of the United Kingdom, which is complex enough as it is. Delete Rhollenton 23:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have taken the liberty of striking through the votes from likely sockpuppets created after this debate started. Rhollenton 02:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David | Talk 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. My main field of activity. I have started several dozen articles about FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies based in England, but it didn't occur to me to create this and it is a bad idea. There are very few major companies based in England that don't also operate elsewhere in the UK. England is not a separate economic entity. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep If it is not possible for a company to be incorporated "in England", then why are there 171,000 Google hits for the search term "incorporated in England"?-- Mais oui! 19:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • All the recent ones which are technically correct read in full "incorporated in England and Wales" See England & Wales. Rhollenton 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment ... and what about the historical ones? If they are incorporated in England and Wales, then, by definition, they are incorporated in England. This cat is not about incorporation anyway, it is about location of headquarters: very few companies these days operate only within one political entity.-- Mais oui! 13:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
      • No they aren't. Incorporation is a legal concept and there is no such jurisdiction. Rhollenton 02:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Scotland has a different legal system and company registration system to England. -- wonkotsane 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Account created 21:35, 14 December 2005 and has only voted on this and related issues. Vote should be disregarded as a likely sockpuppet. Rhollenton 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) strikeout removed, note left. DES ^(talk) 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That is a fairly strong allegation to make. What evidence do you have? Which Wikipedia User are you alleging that this is a sockpuppet of? Unless you can bring forward some evidence, the vote should stand. Are new users not allowed to have a say?-- Mais oui! 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep I vote for this category to stay.-- Jamms1
  • Account created 00:12, 15 December 2005 and has only voted on this and related issues. Vote should be disregarded as a likely sockpuppet. Rhollenton 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) strikeout removed, note left. DES ^(talk) 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That is a fairly strong allegation to make. What evidence do you have? Which Wikipedia User are you alleging that this is a sockpuppet of? Unless you can bring forward some evidence, the vote should stand. Are new users not allowed to have a say?-- Mais oui! 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per the one above. Sumahoy 01:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete The UK has one economy. You won't find major companies that describe themselves as English. CalJW 09:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If you follow that logic, then the world only has one economy, so why don't you nominate all "Economy of foo" categories for deletion?-- Mais oui! 13:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Request for administrator assistance on this discussion I request that an administrator reviews the behaviour of User:Rhollenton on this strand. He has made a personal attack on me, and unjustly scored out the votes of three other users.-- Mais oui! 09:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have removed vote strikeouts -- in general it is best not to strike out comments or votes other than one's own. It is fine to present evidience that the clsoer may use in deciding whether to disregard a commetn/vote, but it is better to do so as neutrally and factually as possible, and to avoid accusations, particualrly ones that the accuser cannot prove. DES ^(talk) 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Neutrality ^talk 18:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete English categories should be restricted to places, buildings, people and little else. Osomec 14:20, 18 December 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 15:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Not a good idea. Learned societies do not operate at an England only level. Only one article has been moved from Category:Learned societies of the United Kingdom but that is one too many. Delete Rhollenton 23:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have taken the liberty of striking through the votes from likely sockpuppets created after this debate started. Rhollenton 02:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. The one entry is a London-based society and not really an England-based one anyway. I suspect someone's trying to make a political point in creating separate categories for England. David | Talk 23:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• This might be useful if someone wanted to find "Learned Societies" by locale, but that would mean that all entries in England would be in United Kingdom as well, and that there should be entries for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, all entries of which should also be in United Kingdom. Note: "Learned Societies" is not a common term in the United States. Hackwrench 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep "Learned societies do not operate at an England only level." If you follow that line of logic, then no learned society on the planet should be categorised by nationality.-- Mais oui! 19:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a blatant piece of Britification hence the "one too many" comment above. -- wonkotsane 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Account created 21:35, 14 December 2005 and has only voted on this and related issues. Vote should be disregarded as a likely sockpuppet. Rhollenton 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) strikeout removed, note left. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That is a fairly strong allegation to make. What evidence do you have? Which Wikipedia User are you alleging that this is a sockpuppet of? Unless you can bring forward some evidence, the vote should stand. Are new users not allowed to have a say?-- Mais oui! 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'm one of 50 million English people and like to find out about English stuff— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance Dragon ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 December 2005
  • Anonymous vote. Likely sockpuppet as wonkotsane above and Jamms1 below. Rhollenton 01:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) strikeout removed, note left. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That is a fairly strong allegation to make. What evidence do you have? Which Wikipedia User are you alleging that this is a sockpuppet of? Unless you can bring forward some evidence, the vote should stand. Are new users not allowed to have a say?-- Mais oui! 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yet again Rhollenton shows us his inability to distinguish between England, Britain and the UK-- Jamms1 strikeout removed, note left. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Account created 00:12, 15 December 2005 and has only voted on this and related issues. Vote should be disregarded as a likely sockpuppet. As for the allegation, I am English and I understand the difference perfectly well, but none of these organisations are specifically English so it is not helpful to classify them as such. Rhollenton 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That is a fairly strong allegation to make. What evidence do you have? Which Wikipedia User are you alleging that this is a sockpuppet of? Unless you can bring forward some evidence, the vote should stand. Are new users not allowed to have a say?-- Mais oui! 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per the others. Sumahoy 01:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is the worst of these three. All four societies in it are most certainly British rather than English and two of them have the word "British" in their name. CalJW 09:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Request for administrator assistance on this discussion I request that an administrator reviews the behaviour of User:Rhollenton on this strand. He has made a personal attack on me, and unjustly scored out the votes of three other users.-- Mais oui! 09:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have removed vote strikeouts -- in general it is best not to strike out comments or votes other than one's own. It is fine to present evidience that the clsoer may use in deciding whether to disregard a commetn/vote, but it is better to do so as neutrally and factually as possible, and to avoid accusations, particualrly ones that the accuser cannot prove. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete English categories should be restricted to places, buildings, people and little else. Osomec 14:20, 18 December 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 merge -- Kbdank71 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Misnamed; redundant; Category:Disney films already exists. tregoweth 23:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Duplicate. Rhollenton 23:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Disney films does not allow films which have not been produced with the Walt Disney or Disney brand. The new category aims to collect all movies, Walt Disney branded or not, plus Pixar, Disney-distributed and other types of movies. Disney have produced such a wide variety of films, there needs to be a place where all movies can come together.-- Speedway 16:25, 11 December 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 -- Kbdank71 15:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Was nominated on WP:AFD by User:130.159.254.2 and User:PatGallacher. Articles for Deletion is not the place to discuss Categories for deletion. I am moving the deletion discussion for the category here. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 20:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• • Is this nomination valid? Why is there no Cfd notice displayed at the category? How can a Cfd nomination be valid if the nominator fails to put up a notice at the cat, to alert Users? Would an Administrator please review whether or not this nomination can continue, and if it does, please adjust the start date to the date when a Cfd notice was first applied to the cat. I would also like it noted that the nominator's opening statement is not accurate: this category was not nominated for deletion at Afd, the article was.-- Mais oui! 13:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This is the second time in 5 weeks that this cat has undergone a Cfd nomination. How many times can its opponents repeatedly nominate it? This is disruptive.-- Mais oui! 13:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not useful to divide British people in this way. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep For the many reasons cited at the old Afd discussion.-- Mais oui! 19:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That Afd discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish-Scots. It was about the article, not about the category.-- Mais oui! 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article has survived an AfD - so should the category. It's not a question of "dividing" people. Camillus ^{talk| contribs} 20:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. a valid ethnicity category. - Mayumashu 03:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Categorisation by citizenship is enough, with a special exemption for Jewish people. Osomec 14:22, 18 December 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

It's perhaps a small issue but it would be more technically accurate to refer to institutions of government rather than councils. The Metropolitan Board of Works was a local authority but not a council, for instance. The elected local bodies in Scotland are technically 'corporations' and perhaps one could argue that Trades Councils are also 'local councils'. David | Talk 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Yeah, move. I'm not sure where you get that bit about Scottish corporations - the current local authorities are certainly Councils (whilst of course England used to have local corporations). Morwen - Talk 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Only that all the Scots I've ever met talked of "Glasgow Corporation". David | Talk 19:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Support move. -- G Rutter 22:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support The term "local authority" is widely used. Rhollenton 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support Needed to make the category comprehensive. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support "Local Councils" is often used as short hand in local government for parish / town councils that are not principal local authorities. Paulleake
• Support "Local authorities" is the official term used by the government. David 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support. Neutrality ^talk 18:33, 17 December 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 15:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Category is misleading and has fueled a revert war on Aetherometry Hackwrench 18:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. " Pseudoscience" is a fairy-well defined description of certain theories. If there is an edit conflict at an article perhaps this isn't the correct category for that one article, or perhaps there are other dispute resolutions available. - Willmcw 21:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. The Pseudoscience article gives a good discussion on how and why some topics are so classified and the second paragraph of Aetherometry (at the time of writing) clearly shows why it should be classified as such ("aetherometry is not supported by scientific consensus, being in conflict with established theories such as relativity", etc ). -- G Rutter 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose This is a specific area. All the latest legitimate research is of "Questionable Validity". And that phrase would invite pov edits concerning creationism. Rhollenton 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't see how it would do so any more or less than Pseudoscience Hackwrench 17:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose don't be silly. — Dunc| ☺ 11:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose - Pseudoscience is a well-known term; I've not previously heard this SQV noun phrase Ian Cairns 11:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

That's part of the point. Pseudoscience is well known and has negative connotations. Science of Questionable Validity would have less of an emotional charge associated with it Hackwrench 17:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes, and it would also misleadingly label many crackpot ideas as "science", giving them a degree of credibility that they have not earned (and probably never will). -- StoatBringer 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose for reasons given. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. These are two different things altogether. Pseudscience is a standard term for things that are not contested, except by charlatans and cranks, who don't really count. Perpetual motion, stuff like that. There are other areas whose validity is questioned, but which is supported by at least some reasonable people with credentials.... not many, though. Classical psychoanalysis is the only one I can think of right off. Anyway, that's something altogether different. Herostratus 06:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. As above, plus "of Questionable Validity" sounds very POV to me. Sikyanakotik 20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. This is a WP:CFD of Questionable Validity. Pseudoscience is a valid and widely accepted and understood term with a long history. That its use has prompted conflict is a specious justification for some creative and oblique bowdlerizing through categorization. Obviously nobody wants to find out their pet belief is pseudoscience, but that doesn't stop the term from being useful. FeloniousMonk 06:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The question is not whether or not pseudoscience is a useful term. The question is whether or not the Category Pseudoscience is useful. With categories, one runs into the problem of people not reading the justification for the Category's existence on the Category page.

Comment. This proposal, as stated by Hackwrench, is a complete red herring. "Pseudoscience" and "Science of Questionable Validity" are both value judgements. The article on Pseudoscience clearly states that "pseudoscience" is characterized by a lack of adherence to the scientific method. One cannot judge whether some endeavour X does or does not adhere to the scientific method without knowing what methods X uses, on what it bases its claims, what its experimental procedures are, how it draws its conclusions, etc. In cases where such an examination has been performed and it has been found that X indeed does not adhere to the scientific method, the category "Pseudoscience" may be perfectly apt. The problem arises when the category "Pseudoscience" is used simply to discredit something that the categorizer has not studied and knows nothing about. This has happened in the case of Aetherometry and a bunch of other entries pertaining to non-mainstream/dissident science. Just because the conclusions from the given endeavour contradict some presently accepted scientific "truths" does not, in and of itself, allow one to conclude that the endeavour does not adhere to the scientific method. Just because the research has not been published, or talked about, in mainstream journals, does not, in and of itself, allow one to conclude that the research is not properly scientific. (And, by the way, "properly scientific" does not mean that it cannot make errors.) Unless one knows and understands the methods that the research is employing, one has no business categorizing it as "pseudoscientific".

What Wikipedia needs, in my opinion, is an additional, NPOV category for those scientific endeavours that have not been accepted into the mainstream, and whose scientific merits Wikipedia editors are not able to judge. It should be called "Non-Mainstream Science" or "Dissident Science" or "Research which We Are Unable to Judge". If, instead, you insist on shoving such endeavours into the category "Pseudoscience", then YES, you are giving evidence of a severe bias. It is not the category that is POV, it is your insistence - and a militant insistence, to boot - on applying it to cases where, by any honest and unbiased account, you have a clearly insufficient basis for judgement. FrankZappo 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. We certainly can use the term to categorize a subject when noteable mainstream scientists choose to apply it to the subject. A valid term, widely used, and pretty specific. -- NightMonkey 06:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I would say that for an encyclopedia classification, it is not quite sufficient that this or that "notable" mainstream scientist chose to apply the term. One also needs to ascertain on what basis he or she has made this choice. Does he/she know anything about the topic? Has he/she attempted to reproduce the experiments and found them to be bogus? Has he/she found that the conclusions have nothing to do with the quoted experimental evidence? These are the kinds of things scientists should do before passing judgement on the scientific merits of a body of research, no? Do you know if any of your "notables" have done this, with respect to the work they have classified as "pseudoscience"? Besides, you know, if "notability" counts for so much, then you should know that some of the people whose work has been classified here as "pseudoscience" are considerably more "notable" scientists than the people who did the classifying. 216.254.156.115 20:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Sure, but did I say that the other Wikipedia official policies don't apply to Categories? WP:Verifiability still applies. Cheers, NightMonkey 08:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Good point Dunc. Jim62sch 10:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose - stick to established names; renaming violates NPOV, because it calls on us to make a value judgement. Guettarda 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oh? Classifying something as "pseudoscience" does not involve making a judgement about its scientific value? Tsk, tsk. 216.254.156.115 20:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose - irregardless of red-herrings, revert-wars, or additional violations of NPOV—1 Pseudoscience is an established and used category, 2 Science of Questionable Validity is the definition of Pseudoscience, and by definition excludes itself from being a Category, 3 to clarify one can discover by scientific method when scientific method is not used by others -- Hard Raspy Sci 17:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Of course one can discover by scientific method when scientific method is not used by others. So, start doing that, you-all. My point exactly. 216.254.156.115 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Science of Questionable Validity is not the definition of Pseudoscience. It's a much broader topic. Hackwrench 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Anyone who complains about their questionable scientific belief being labelled "pseudoscience" is a... eh, nevermind. Ashibaka tock 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Yup, he's just like the jerk who complains about being called a "witch" after having caused sickness to his neighbour's cow by means of incantations. Oh, but wait a minute! Has it been actually shown that the sickness has been caused by incantations? Has it been actually shown that these particular "scientific beliefs" are "questionable"? Ah, small detail. Carry on, ladies, carry on. 216.254.156.115 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose "Science of questionable validity" gives the impression that some things in the category are actually scientific, when they are clearly not. Pseudoscience means just that - pseudo (fake, false, counterfeit, not real). -- StoatBringer 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose Currently I oppose moving Pseudoscience to "Science of questionable validity" as I had proposed but I feel the second should remain a category. Hackwrench 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Gadzooks! linas 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Support. Pseudoscience is mostly a political, hence POV, scientistic concept. When one can provide solid references for prior falsification, "pseudoscientific" theories should move to a "Falsified science" category. Otherwise, they should go into the proposed "Science of questionable validity" category. — Meidosemme 16:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

All right, but if one does not know the validity, then the validity is not "questionable", it is unconfirmed. The category should be called "Science of Unconfirmed Validity". FrankZappo 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose Brimba 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Many pseudoscientfic theories are not scientific, just because they are not falsifiable. Therefore asking for prior falsification as a requirement for pseudosience is silly. Secondly, who will decide when some theory has been falsified are not? Put them in a category of "alleged falsified theories" or "alleged falsified theories of questionable science"?? WouterVH 23:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. While I do think that the current category may be a POV issue, I don't think that the alternative is a correct alternative. "Pseudoscience" does not mean "science of a questionable validity", it means "field of research which purports to be science but is not considered as such by the mainstream scientific community." The latter is obviously too wordy to use as a category name, though. But anyway, the point is the pseudoscience is about the methodology, not the validity. -- Fastfission 03:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Whether something is "pseudo", "falsified", or "questionable in validity" can be seen as a POV. However, I think that all the term allude and indicate that something is likely false or fabricated. On that note, there is no point in dancing around the issue by using weaker terms or long wordy statements. "Pseudo"-science also implies "non-emperical"-science (an oxymoron) which exactly describes a pseudoscience . Sjschen 01:22, 18 December 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

To bring the category name into line with the other categories, e.g. Category:Railway stations in Berkshire. Our Phellap 18:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support Rhollenton 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support for consistency. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support. See category talk:Railway stations in the United Kingdom for the related categories. Thryduulf 18:49, 11 December 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 as nominated without state name -- Kbdank71 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Category:Atlanta history --> Category:History of Atlanta, Georgia or Category:History of Atlanta
• Category:Baltimore history --> Category:History of Baltimore, Maryland or Category:History of Baltimore
• Category:Boston history --> Category:History of Boston, Massachusetts or Category:History of Boston
• Category:Chicago history --> Category:History of Chicago, Illinois or Category:History of Chicago
• Category:Cleveland history --> Category:History of Cleveland, Ohio or Category:History of Cleveland
• Category:Detroit history --> Category:History of Detroit, Michigan or Category:History of Detroit
• Category:Los Angeles history --> Category:History of Los Angeles, California or Category:History of Los Angeles
• Category:Louisville history --> Category:History of Louisville
• Category:Nashville history --> Category:History of Nashville, Tennessee or Category:History of Nashville
• Category:New York City history --> Category:History of New York City
• Category:San Diego history --> Category:History of San Diego, California or Category:History of San Diego
• Category:San Francisco history --> Category:History of San Francisco, California or Category:History of San Francisco
• Category:Seattle history --> Category:History of Seattle, Washington or Category:History of Seattle
• Category:Washington, D.C. history --> Category:History of Washington, D.C.
• Rename all. Wiki-standard is "History of Foo" and in case of American cities "City, state". See: Category:History by country. - Darwinek 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support Best to use the same form for the U.S. Rhollenton 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support but is it really necessary to add the state for all the cities? Surely "History of Los Angeles" is sufficient? The state should only be used if there are two cities of the same name. Our Phellap 23:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support new structyure. Oppose addition of state names. I have seen media style guides which exempt the major cities from this practice. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support new structure, oppose state names as per User:Carina22. (The "D.C." should stay, though.)-- Mike Selinker 16:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support new structure and oppose state names - in agreement with Carina22 and Mike Selinker -- Clevelander 17:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support new structure and oppose state names. Sumahoy 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support new structure and oppose state names, except D.C. jengod 20:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support new structure, but oppose state names (except D.C.) --- Aude 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support new structure, but oppose state names (except D.C.) CalJW 09:49, 15 December 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 15:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete The far right would not self-describe themselves as such. We cannot have Categories that are unclear and whose usual use is perjorative - we must be mindful of WP:NPOV. Wizzy… ☎ 08:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Problem with this category name is that it's very vague. What does 'far right' mean? Most of the articles currently in there refer to the nether regions between the right-most extreme of the Conservative Party and the openly fascist organisations. Perhaps a renaming to Category:British political organisations to the right of the Conservative Party. David | Talk 19:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• This category has been set up by a Left-winger who has been busy, with another, attacking those whom, in their opinion, are "far-right". But this is only their OPINION, something which Wikipedia are opposed to in general. Frankly it is an absolute scandal that the people and groups in this category are hear. Denis Walker is a lay preacher in the Methodist Church and a most devout Christian. Thousands of members, including numerous members of both Houses of Parliament, have passed through the Conservative Monday Club (its correct full name) and it is a monstrous slur upon those mainstream conservatives. The clear purpose of the individual who set up this category is to slur every organisation, and so all its members, and the individuals, as some sort of neo-Nazis, as that is the general term the broad Left use. If this is permitted to stand it will be a massive disgrace to Wikipedia. Robert I 20:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• I would not object to the page being renamed, if such is the general consensus. CJCurrie 20:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• As you've suggested David, the problem is what to call those to the right of the Conservative Party (or on the "hard right" of the party). The reason I created the category is I came across one person who is the "leader" of the Monday Club (no longer associated with the Conservatives) and didn't know how to categorise him. Category:British conservatives suggests a party affiliation and Category:British political organisations to the right of the Conservative Party is quite long. Homey 20:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• The thing is, if everyone from The Guardian to The Telegraph describes the Monday Club as being "far right" it would seem to be an objective description. Homey 21:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete wide open to misuse. Rhollenton 22:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete obvious attempt to demonise groups and people. The views of four or five left-wing journalists do not constitute fact, wherever they are printed. It is ludicrous to to refer to the Conservative Monday Club, which in 1990 had 36 members of parliament and an equal number of Peers as members, far right and non-conservative. I am a former member and am very offended. 213.122.43.210 08:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You should cancel your subscriptions to the Times and the Telegraph then since they both use the term in reference to the Monday Club. Homey

• I am not arguing on the merits of certain entries - I am arguing against a bald classification into a Category than can be construed as perjorative. The body of the article can address these issues better. Wizzy… ☎ 09:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• A revised renaming suggestion. After consulting Barberis, McHugh and Tyldesley's "Encyclopaedia of British and Irish Political Organisations", I find they put such groups in a category called "Libertarian and non-authoritarian right". Why not Category:Libertarian and non-authoritarian right wing politics of the United Kingdom? It is long but there are others of similar length. David | Talk 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article on the Monday Club states it "tended to be seen as the 'authoritarian' wing of the [Conservative] party", so I would question if this is a more useful name for the cat (which does not, in any case, appear to exist). Valiantis 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly point of view. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment What is the actual cat name? Category:British far-right - as listed at the head of this section - is a redlink. I am disinclined to vote on a cat that does not appear to exist. Valiantis 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Homey deleted it himself yesterday afternoon. David | Talk 14:24, 12 December 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 15:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete. Duplicate at Portal:Philosophy/navigation. Infinity0 ^talk 11:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Carina22 15:17, 11 December 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 14:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The category is a duplicate of Category:Melbourne churches. Adz 10:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:Melbourne churches has since been replaced with Category:Churches in Melbourne, so if somebody could delete Category:Melbourne churches that would be good. Thanks. -- Adz 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Redundant and violates naming convention. -,-~ ^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:22, 15 December 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Clarification. "Major league" could apply to any number of sports. - EurekaLott 04:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename obviously necessary. Rhollenton 22:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename for clarity' Carina22 15:17, 11 December 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Most of the categories for buildings etc use "of the United Kingdom" as does Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom.

• Rename Rhollenton 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David | Talk 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename for consistency. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 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 merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Redundant, not to mention the qualifier "Famous" is ill-defined. — BorgHunter ( talk) 00:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge or if empty, delete. Rhollenton 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge and delete. Should be a speedy. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge "Famous" is subjective. Notable would be the alternative word, and notablity is, of course, assumed, so there is no need for this category. - N (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Hispanics. There are not Hispanics outside of the United States since it is a term created for Americans of Spanish/Latin American origin. -- Vizcarra 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. And delete Category:Famous Hispanic Americans on tautological grounds—if you're in Wikipedia you must be famous by default. (I just couldn't resist using the word tautological.) -,-~ ^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. Neutrality ^talk 18:32, 17 December 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

rename as per naming conventions. Grutness... wha? 06:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nominator. Rhollenton 22:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nominator. Carina22 15:17, 11 December 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.