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.
Nominator's rationale: This entire category is the result of one editor unilaterally making undiscussed changes for no other reason than his own personal wishes. There's no such thing as a "Masonic order" - it's a made-up term. The merge request is basically to put the articles back where they were in the first place without having to edit them all individually. MSJapan (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support With different logic though. Masonic orders are a thing and a common term within this category tree. But, in practice, Masonic organizations with the word "order" in their title don't seem different than those without that term. That makes this a WP:SHAREDNAME issue. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, Category:Viral diseases already has pages, there are lists already in articles, and there is an excellent template that organizes viruses. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Paid-inclusion open access journals[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Googling "paid-inclusion open access" renders five results, all of them WP or WP mirrors. The explanation on the cat talk page suggests that this cat was created to get around the deletion of Category:Predatory open access journals. The distinction made on that talk page between "genuine" OA journals (that don't charge article processing fees) and "predatory" is artificial: many reputable OA publishers follow this so-called "paid-inclusion" model (PLOS and BioMed Central, for example). In any case, "paid-inclusion open access" seems to be a made-up term and I propose to upmerge this category to Category:Open access journals. Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone has more to say. Supporting evidence for keeping this could be anyone providing sources which establish that reputable organizations or publishers use this term. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find evidence that this is a term publishers or scholars use to classify open access journals. Upmerge the category's entries. Predatory vs non-predatory is probably something better handled with explanation and good referencing in a list-based article than in a too-simplistic categorization. --Mark viking (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is a problem with the exact name of the category, it could rather be renamed (e.g. to "author-pays open access journals," author-pays open access being a quite established term for this type of journal with a few thousand results). However, the category's title is descriptive, and many descriptive titles used by Wikipedia categories are only used exactly by Wikipedia. There is no question that paid-inclusion journals (which tend to be predatory in many cases) should be in a separate category, and not in the same category as proper open access journals (which are never predatory). Having a large number of predatory and dubious paid-inclusion journals (such as MDPI's journals) in the same category as genuine open access journals published by e.g. universities would be quite inappropriate. Paid-inclusion is certainly an equally defining characteristic as offering content to readers for free. The paid-inclusion model is intimately linked to the concept of predatory journals, and frankly, scams. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to quote myself, from the discussion last year:
"This category is to some extent, but not exclusively, intended to fill the void of the former Category:Predatory open access journals, which was deleted in 2013 because the word predatory can hardly be considered neutral. The term paid-inclusion on the other hand describes the business model of these journals in a neutral way. I think it is important to distinguish between genuine open access journals and paid-inclusion journals, especially as journals published by publishers considered to be predatory are always paid-inclusion journals. The distinction between paid-inclusion or not is emerging as the most important distinction as a result of the tsunami of predatory and paid-inclusion journals and publishers in the last few years. This category is intended to solve the problem of having genuine open access journals (which don't charge fees, and which are often published by universities or other non-profit entities) in the same category as paid-inclusion for-profit predatory journals."
Comment: We also have subcategories such as "Category:Delayed open access journals," a term with 1,740 Google results (minus Wikipedia results). The term "predatory open access journals" produces 8,200 Google results (minus Wikipedia results). As a concept and defining characteristic, there is no question that "predatory open access journals" is more important and established in RS than "delayed open access journals". The correct course of action would probably be to rename this category "predatory open access journals," which is overlapping with "paid-inclusion open access journals," although not entirely identical, and possibly remove a couple of journals from the category. A similarly named category was deleted three years ago due to concerns over whether the word "predatory" is neutral, but a lot has happened in this field in the last three years, and the term predatory journals has become very established in reliable sources, to the extent that the arguments from 2013 may no longer be valid. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two remarks here. 1/ As Bjerrebæk writes above and on the talk page of this cat, this is an attempt to surreptitiously re-create the category "predatory open access journals", which was deleted at CfD 3 years ago, under a misleading different name. 2/ Equating OA journals that have an article processing fee with "predatory" journals is inappropriate for many reasons. In the sciences, there are hardly any journals that do not have such fees (again, see PLOS and BioMed Central, but many large publishers like Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and Elsevier also operate such journals). Very few journals that Jeffrey Beall has on his list of predatory publishers/journals meet our inclusion criteria, whereas many legitimate journals charging fees are notable. Including these in a category that is intended to be a badge of shame is inappropriate. Those few predatory journals that do meet our inclusion criteria all get a sourced reference to Beall's list mentioning directly in the article that they are on that list. I don't see what improvement a badly-defined category would bring here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have written no such thing. On the contrary I have transparently pointed out from the very beginning (i.e. last year) that the category to some extent, but not entirely overlaps in scope with a category that was deleted 3 years ago, and which I was never involved in creating or even using (I wasn't even aware of its previous existence when I decided to create this category, and only became aware of it when I looked around for similar categories). There are good reasons to have a category for what is often known as author-pays open access or "gold open access" as it has also been referred to, which is often considered one of the two main models of open access[1], and to be be able to distinguish these journals from "platinum open access" in the category system. It is possible that the title of this category wasn't the best, but in that case it should be renamed and not merged. I have not argued that author-pays is always predatory, but predatory journals are always author-pays and never "platinum open access" and there are substantial differences between the two models. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles mentions this characteristic in the header so it's unlikely to be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In U.S. English, the word is usually spelled with one "l". Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Minor planets named for members of The Beatles[edit]
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.
This category groups together asteroids or other minor planets named after the four band members of The Beatles. The category currently consists of 4 redirects that all point to the same list article: List of minor planets: 4001–5000.
Objects in space are not defined by a British band. This is effectively an empty category because it groups 4 redirects to the same article. Even if we created stub articles, the maximum number would be 4 with no growth potential. This whole concept seems very trivial, along with the rest of Category:Minor planets by source of name, because it groups objects in space together based solely on their name; it's like grouping mountains by how they are named. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related Nomination There is an open nomination for deleting "Category:Asteroids named as an award" right here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and then consider Category:Minor planets named for members of Monty Python). The article categorization system should be used to categorize actual content (i.e. articles) not in an attempt to create a database by having categories that are wholly/mostly of redirects to list entries - especially where the list entries make no mention of the Beatles (e.g. there are other people named Lennon). DexDor(talk) 05:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – ridiculous category for several reasons. (It should be 'named after' per British English: ditto Monty Python.) Oculi (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: About a year ago there was an effort by me and others in WP:Astronomy to turn undevelopable (non-notable per WP:NASTRO) asteroid sub-stubs into #Redirects. These, along with most of the pages in these subcats were part of that effort. During the #R-run, I noticed categorical information in the article, like "this asteroid is a member of a set named after The Beatles", etc., and wanted to preserve that information instead of just losing it via #R'ing. If that doesn't meet the usual guidelines, ok, but I ask that you inform WP:Astronomy first. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the Beatles and Monty Python are troupes of Category:English entertainers. To me, this coincidence suggests using broader categories of astronamesakes, by nationality or trade. Or even both. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCategory:Minor planets named for members of The Beatles is useless due to its size of 4 members of which 4149 Harrison, 4147 Lennon and 4150 Starr are being re-written, so they will reference each other, including the only remaining redirect, 4148 McCartney. The category is now empty. While this particular category is not worth keeping, please note that Tom.Reding has done a tremendous job on the categorization of minor planets. We both are trying to transform an incomplete and inconsistent categorization system based on our daily work with the subject. We still have a long way to go, so I ask for your support for the time being. Rfassbind– talk 13:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- A completely useless category. Sharing a name is not normally regarded as a proper basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is based on a trivial characteristic. Note that the category has been emptied already. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
