The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete category, with no decision here about a list. For info, an article Cabell's blacklist has just been started, and two pages listing the current category members are linked in the discussion below. – FayenaticLondon 20:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a mix of WP:OR/WP:V violation, as well as WP:NONDEFINING. The journals seems to be added to the category willy nilly, mostly based on whether or not their publisher is listed as some form of "questionable" on the no-longer maintain Beall's list.
I'm potentially a Nobel prize winner, but we don't need a category to put me in. The category has a better chance of success in its original form (Category:Predatory journals), but it should only be added to journals which are definitely predatory, and then we get into issues of how exactly do we establish this? There is a considerable debate on whether or not Frontiers journal are predatory, for instance. Journals like Biomedical Research or Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, are now published by predatory organizations (Allied Academies/OMICS) following corporate mergers, but that doesn't make the publication predatory themselves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fairly well defined but not perfectly defined concept. One will need a reference to categorize something as a "potential predatory journal" thus it is not WP:OR. Others have taken on maintaining Beall's list so not seeing that as a huge issue. It is like pseudoscience. Not everything fits perfectly into pseudoscience, for example some call faith healing pseudoscience (when they claim a scientific basis) but when they do not it is not pseudoscience. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Blatant attack category which doesn't even require reasonable suspicion, just an editor's choice to apply it. Just as any human is a potential murderer (if they develop motive, means, opportunity and loss of scruples), any journal is a potential predatory journal: even the most scrupulous and reputable journal has the potential to become predatory if it is taken over by predators. This reminds me of many years ago when a journalist recounted the response when she challenged a v senior public official about his govt's use of death squads against named elderly civilians: "What you got to understand is that these people were potential communists" --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not based on an editor's choice, it requires a reference to a decent source. We have a few lists including Beall's and Cabell's lists as such sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: most categories are added using WP:HOTCAT or by editing the article's wikicode. Either way, there is no need for anyone to see the category page before or after adding an article to it.
So a category needs to do what it says on the tin. Categories which require verbose explanations don't work, because those explanations will vibly be unread by the editors who need to see them.
In this case the meaning which you give flatly contradicts the category name. That is an unworkable magnet for miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no defense against people editing badly and this is a very bad line of argument. There are more and more predatory publishers and they are corroding the literature where they operate; other admins are actively working to strip them from WP articles (they are often spammed into our articles to drive up traffic to their websites). We serve our readers and editors by categorizing them.
And there is no need for verbosity - I did this just the other day. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Jytdog: on the contrary, the bad line of argument is your shameful attempt at blame-shifting. There is nothing at all irresponsible about applying a category on the basis that its purpose reflects its name; that is routine categorisation practice.
The people editing badly here are those who created a category whose stated purpose is so radically different from its name that it could have been designed as a magnet for miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still find your argument baffling. If we took that line all the way to end, we would just lock down WP since anybody can fill pages with nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is baffling about the principle that readers and editors should be able to rely on category names meaning what they say, rather than the inverse? It is a very simple, basic principle of labelling anything that the label should be clear to its intended users. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about Wikipedia WP:CATEGORY, not some random "label". Applications of categories are subject to V and of course must be NPOV. NPOV does not mean "positive". The content is there and well-sourced, or it is not. If it is not, the categorization is just bad editing. Predatory journals are a very real thing and an increasingly large problem. Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter whether it's an en.wp Category, an en.wp article, a door sign, a road sign, a switch in an aircraft cockpit or whatever; the label should be clear and should not mislead.
Yes, of course WP:V applies. The problem in this case is that the set of "Potential predatory journals" contains 100% of all journals, just as the set of "potential murderers" contains 100% of all humans (including me and thee). So the only verification needed to categorise a journal as "potential predatory" is proof that it exists.
Of course predatory journals exist; that is not in dispute. If reliable sources confirm that a journal is predatory, then per WP:V it would be fine to place it in a Category:Predatory journals. But "potential predatory journals" is wide-open. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes per my !vote below the name could be better. This is not a renaming discussion now is it. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, renaming can very much be on the table here, even though the original proposal was to delete. That's why it's "categories for discussion" rather than "categories for deletion". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, because I recognize the good intent here, but there are way too many problems, unless some completely different way to define the category is found (in which case this existing version would still need to be replaced). "Potential" is both WP:WEASEL and a qualifier that ensures failure of WP:DEFINING. And without very solid sourcing, "predatory" takes on too much of an editorializing and attack tone. I recognize that predatory publishing is a real thing, and I am very friendly to the goal of finding an appropriate way to inform our readers about it, but I cannot agree to do it with a categorization that so obviously flies in the face of guidelines and policies. If there were some way to rename the category to be about "journals that take payments to...", I could support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing subsequent comments, I'm still very strongly on the delete (or completely rename) side. I want to add something about whether there is a "need" for such a category: as much as I do see value for our readers in providing this kind of information, we need to resist a WP:RGW-like temptation to defend such a category based upon the obvious noxiousness of predatory publishing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is brainlessan obvious keep in my view. For any cat to be used there needs to be sourced content to support it. It cannot just be applied willy-nilly (nor can any category). I am dismayed to see NJOURNALs people fighting this. It is very needed. I don't much like "potential" and think "probable" would be better, but that is a renaming issue, not a deletion issue. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC) (fix a bit Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
None of the above. A cat like this would be impossible to neutrally maintain. The name of the cat is also a problem. Deleting the cat would lose quality information. There is only one thing I can think of to address this situation. Convert to an article titled List of journals accused of being a predatory open access publisher. QuackGuru (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a list article. Either create a list article or we should keep until a list article is created. Or create a draft list article that can be reviewed before going live. QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@QuackGuru: per WP:CLN, the decisions to have a list and/or a category and/or a navbox are independent of each other. We can have all 3, any 2 of them, any one of them, or none of them: each is decided on its own merits. So the category is kept or deleted on its own merits, and the list is created if it makes a viable list. So there is no need or policy basis to postpone deletion simply 'cos the list doesn't yet exist in article space. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can halt deletion for now until a list or draft list is created. If the cat is deleted it would be impossible or difficult to find all the journals that were in the cat. Do you support a list article? If you do then we need to preserve this cat until at least a draft is created. QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. @QuackGuru: The entire point of my initial post in this sub-thread is that I have made a list of all the pages in the category to preserve that list in the event of deletion .... so there is absolutely no need to preserve that cat. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear reason to rush to deletion. Things could be added or deleted from the cat daily. Let's put this on hold and create another way to assimilate the information. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush, but also no reason to delay. Just the usual 7 days discussion, then deletion if there is consensus to do so. It took me ~60 seconds to grab that copy, so if the closing admin sees that related changes justifies updating the list, it is a trivial task. It is not unusual with CfD closures to leave behind a cat listing for those who say they want to make a list ... but in my decade of experience at CfD it is much more unsual for the list to be actually made. So if you want to be one of the rare exceptions who does make such a list, deletion will in no way impede your good work. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (1) A category is far too black-and-white for a complex issue like this. Either an article is in the category or it isn't, there is no possibility for nuance. While nuance is very much needed here. (2) This is not a defining characteristic, none of these journals is primarily described as "a potentially predatory journal". For example, the article Clinical practice only tells that the publisher of the journal was on Beall's list, not the journal itself. Neither of these two arguments would be a barrier for creating a list, though I would recommend to have "accused of" in the name of the list rather than "potential". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMarcocapelle, Beall only put individual journals on his list if they were stand-alone journals. If a publisher had more than one journal, it went on the publishers lists, but it was clear that he considers any journal published by such publishers to be predatory. --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONDEF still holds, the individual journal will thus not consistently be known as a predatory journal. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm very torn about this one. On the one hand, I think we need to find a way to avert readers that these journals/publishers are fishy. But on the other hand I am also very sensitive to the opposing arguments presented above. I don't think a list is a good idea either. First of all, it would be humongous, with over 1000 entries. The vast majority of those entries (95% or more) would not be notable and never get linked. Would we have to create redirects for every single entry and point it to this list? Second, wouldn't that list suffer the same problems as this cat? My preference is to handle this on a case by case base, with edits like the one Jytdog presented above. That way readers are clearly warned, with a clear reference (Beall's list or one of its successors - if we could find somebody with access to Cabell's list). If other evidence crops up (either for or against something being predatory), that can easily be added to a journal article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty:WP:DNWAUC applies here. Per WP:CAT, categories exist to allow readers to navigate between articles. They are not some sort of warning sign. If editors believe that there is an aspect of a journal which should be conveyed to readers, then that should be included in body text, with prominence accorded per WP:WEIGHT. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BHG here. The place to flag potential issues with predatoriness is in the article's main text, supported by WP:RS which can be traced back to legit sources, not via loosely defined 'potential' categories. Journals do not suddenly become predatory when they get purchased by a predatory organization, for instance. Nor should we categorize them as predatory without a strong, direct statement by a recognized authority. So Category:Predatory journals might fly, or even Category:Acdemic journals published by predatory publishers, with WP:RSes directly tying the journal/publisher to predatoriness (not merely concerns of questionable/potential predatoriness), but Category:Potential predatory journals is a nope, as is Category:Predatory journals when only the publisher is accused of predatoriness. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace. I also agree with BHG and the solutions proposed by Headbomb appear workable. If there's a good source that a particular journal is predatory, it gets included in "predatory journals". If there's no source on the particular journal, but there are good sources testifying that the publisher is predatory, then they go into "Academic journals published by predatory publishers". --Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at the article and its impact rather than where it was published. The category is arbitrary and ill-defined. Jrfw51 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. If it's published in a predatory journal, or a journal published by a predatory publisher, chances are extremely high that it is just so much crap. Remember, a lot of these fake journals cover medical subjects. See WP:MEDRS. --Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the source that needs to be assessed -- so look at WP:MEDRS and see if the article is a Systematic review, Guidelines from respected International societies, secondary review providing consensus etc. Or is it opinion, irrelevant animal studies etc. What other articles have cited the source? New and predatory journals are unlikely to get these. Jrfw51 (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing of our article is a completely separate issue than their categorization. However, anything referenced to a predatory journals should be purged per WP:V/WP:RS.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term 'predatory' in relation to publishing was coining and actively promoted to be derogatory by Beall, who at best is a partisan activist. The word 'potentially' is a Weasel word with no place in a category name. If we're going to classify journals by quality, a dozen better places to start are discussed at Journal ranking. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I fear that the question of whether or not a journal is a predatory one depends on the WP editor's view of the matter. We cannot have a category where the inclusion criterion depends on POV. I am not suggesting that such things do not exist or that they are not highly undesirable in potentially liable to mislead the unwary, just that it is going to be very difficult to establish on a NPOV basis that journals come within the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been thinking about the possibility of a neutral and reliably sourced rename. The original source for such categorization is, as noted above by other editors, Beall's List – and, as also noted already, the list is no longer being actively maintained. However, I think that the fact that it is no longer being actively maintained does not disqualify it as a reliable and verifiable source, because there are readily accessible archive versions of the list: [1], [2], [3]. I believe it would be acceptable to replace the existing categories with Category:Journals on Beall's List and Category:Publishers on Beall's List, based on these sources. The only problem would be updating the categories in the future. That means that newly appearing "predators" would be difficult to categorize, although existing list members could be removed from the categories if there were reliable sourcing saying that they had reformed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I think that would be a good outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not a good outcome. For one thing, existing list members of Category:Journals on Beall's List should not be removed if there were reliable sourcing saying that they had reformed. The fact that have reformed does not undo the fact that they were once on Beall's list. More generally Category:Journals on Beall's List suffers from the same problem as Category:Potential predatory journals, namely that it concerns a non-defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To a considerable degree, I find that I agree with you about that, now that you point it out. But I can add something about "defining". A journal or publisher gets onto that list by centering its business model around certain very conspicuous practices, and those practices are not employed by any other journals or publishers. So, although the fact of being on the list does not, in itself, particularly define the journal, the characteristics of the journal that got it onto the list really are defining. But I agree that there is only so far that we can go with trying to come up with a valid categorization that is based on what makes something "predatory". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Predatory" is POV; "potential" is vague. StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2018 (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:procedural close. Bold move by the nominator reverted. Please use CfD to propose any further move, and next time please remember to tag the nominated category. (See WP:CFD#HOWTO) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There are many places in Ukraine called Holubivka.
(2) Kirovsk in Luhansk Oblast is still called called Kirovsk by the people who live there and the government that controls it. (The government in Kiev has passed a law renaming the town Holubivka - but the town is not controlled by the government in Kiev.) This is why the article on the town is called Kirovsk, Luhansk Oblast.
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 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:Places of worship in Nizhny Novgorod[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.
The result of the discussion was:keep. – FayenaticLondon 07:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, unnecessary category layer, churches already does the job. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've enlarged Nizhny Novgorod Synagogue from an article section into its own full article, so this category now does serve a purpose beyond just Christian churches. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still, one article and one subcategory make a very small category together, and it may better be upmerged anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps merge in the churches subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean, to upmerge the churches subcat to places of worship? Just checking. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2018 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the category currently contains the eponymous article only. No need to merge, the article is in the parent categories already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2018 (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.
