Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 19 May 21 >

May 20[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Borderline life[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: no consensus. There is a consensus that if the category exists, it needs a better name, but there is no consensus here as to what that name should be. A follow-up nomination to propose a new name could be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not supported by any mainstream sources. "Living" and "non-living" are philosophical concepts that have not attained a universal definition. Although not original research, this is an opinion that cannot be supported by reliable sources. Graham Colm (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're (reasonably) considering viroids to be a subclass of viruses? I share the dubiousness over prions. There are a number of other pages, but they seem to generally all be DNA things that can exist outside cells and transfer from cell to cell. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, there is nothing dubious about prions. They are infectious proteins NOT considered by any biologist to be alive nor at the "border" of life. Again, the concept of 'borderline life' SOMETIMES applies to viruses.
  • delete Can we really find RS that state that all members of this category are "borderline life" - seems a nebulous concept still being debated.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a nebulous concept still being debated", yes, and probably will be for a long time. I am aware of this subject, and have been for many years, and there seems to be nothing new. But nebulous concepts can be valid topics. The boundary between "life" and "not life" seems significant enough to me to give this one extra leeway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then a list is perfect - entries can be cited, sourced, discussed in nuance - I would have no objection to listifying. Categorization doesn't really fit though, esp if the space is highly disputed - how can editors agree what is in and what is out? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe from memory (no references at hand) that the concept, albeit nebulous, is stable. That bacteria is life, that fire is not, that viruses are in the boundary region, as they cannot reproduce in isolation, and that these things are well discussed dispassionately. The parent article is missing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "parent article" is limited to viruses. As a molecular biologist I advice you that anything else you may add to it, even as a list, will not have reliable scientific sources and will be contested and deleted. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking RS to establish membership. Saw this crop up on virus, viroid, and prion and was perplexed. I see no compelling argument here for retention. -- Scray (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and clarify inclusion criteria I am a molecular biologist, and as such I am well aware of what the category is trying to do. It is a good faith attempt, but "borderline life" is very misguided as a name. Yes, there are objects where people debate if and how much they can be defined alive. I doubt however they are discussed together, and for sure they are not "borderline", like they belong to some kind of objective limbo: their subjective living status is debated, depending on the definition of life or the knowledge we have of them. For example I am of the -minoritary, I know- opinion that viruses are surely and obviously alive, while other collegues consider them absolutely non living: I don't think many consider viruses something as "borderline alive", like they're agonizing :). However what SmokeyJoe tried to do can be saved. It could be renamed on the lines of "Objects whose living status is debated" (I hope someone can find a better wording), and articles can be included whenever RS can usually be found for this -in this case it would be an informative and proper category. --Cyclopiatalk 07:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, "doubt...they are discussed together", and surmise (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think the current amalgam is poorly-composed. We don't have a RS for the grouping. I suggest that "virus", "viroid", etc serve quite well - they are well-sourced and distinct groups, and I know of no RS that would justify combining them into one group (perhaps because there is no need or justification to do so). -- Scray (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your listed subjects are limited to molecular biology. There is absolutely no debate in that nucleic acids and prions are NOT considered to be alive or on the "border". Including them in your "parent" article/list will be contested and short-lived (pun intended). BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a molecular biologist, I agree prions are not considered to be alive by anyone in their right mind, but I could defend a case for viroids being living beings. Here a small (but reliable) source that, among other things, raises the question and talks about the topic we're discussing here. In general,while we all agree that the category name as it is now is not optimal, I would not be so quickly dismissive of the spirit of the operation that was attempted with this category. --Cyclopiatalk 15:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a molecular biologist, but what I've read above, there is still debate about what is or isn't 'borderline' or 'of debated living status' and it's all quite intriguing and complex. As such, the proper solution is a list article, or just a straight up article, that can discuss these issues with nuance. Categories are not for that - a category is either in or out, and there must be a clear inclusion criteria. If 20 sources say a virus is alive, and 20 more say it's not alive, then that's no basis for a category - and I don't think a category of "things which are currently being debated as to whether alive or dead" is useful either - that's what an article is for - as I don't think "being debated" is WP:DEFINING of a virus (e.g. in articles about a virus, it doesn't usually say "A virus, which may or may not be alive, today infected a rat")--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of agree, but I'd say that if there are sources that explicitly say "That Jabberwockys are alive or not is matter of debate", I think this makes for a clear inclusion criteria in a category not too dissimilar to this one. --Cyclopiatalk 09:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So then what is defining? The fact that whether it's alive is debateable? Not to go all slipperly-slope on you, but what's next in this scheme? Art that is debated as porn? Species whose genus is under dispute? etc.... the fact that something is hotly debated is not a basis for categorization, as then to determine inclusion you have to see if it is truly debated or not, and how firm most opposition be, and so on. This is the sort of stuff that is great for an article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it is debateable but that it is debated. If recent RS are consistent about a debate, I see no problem in categorizing. "Species whose genus is under dispute" sounds to me as a totally germane category, and in fact (sorry for the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) we have Category:Controversial taxa and subcats. You assert "the fact that something is hotly debated is not a basis for categorization": but you don't really explain why. The difficulties you list are red herrings: we're not supposed to gauge the debate ourselves, we're supposed to look for sources that explicitly say it's debated. --Cyclopiatalk 14:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grrr. I name an absurd category, and then you point out it exists. Well, hmm. Touché, I guess.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit bewildered that you consider such a category "absurd". --Cyclopiatalk 14:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the sense of reductio ad absurdum - I was just naming potential other cats about debates that would be created, and I happened upon one that already exists.... :) Just in other parts of the tree, I haven't seen "Controversial" cats - in fact only two exist, Category:Controversial_bird_taxa and Category:Controversial taxa. These categories might violate something in WP:OCAT, but perhaps not, as there seems to be a decent definition. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you wanted to do a reductio ad absurdum, but I still can't see the absurd. --Cyclopiatalk 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow. Prions & viroids & viruses as categories have something in common, but this category is badly named. "Borderline life" could refer to the personality disorder, or philosophical questions about when individual life stops & starts, or questions about gaea & AI. Maybe something like Category:Self-replicating protein- or genetic-based non-organisms or something that captures the defining essence but is much much better worded than my suggestion. I take it we would want to exclude pure crystals and computer programs, so somehow the bio-component needs to be referenced. I am not a molecular biologist but I just asked my partner who is, and she is still talking about it 5 minutes later, and I don't have a better category name. --Lquilter (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling "Are viruses alive" yields many ghits, scholarly hits, and decent sources. It makes me wonder whether the question Are viruses alive? is a notable topic, better titled than Borderline life. Cyclopia, I haven't done any work. I just happened to wander in and thought this was a very interesting case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is surely a case for an expansion of this paragraph. If you are interested in the subject, SmokeyJoe, I would start from there and then see if it becomes large enough to justify a separate article. --Cyclopiatalk 10:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to see someone expand that section at Non-cellular life. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this would be an interesting category if we had articles along the lines of "are viruses alive" and we could name it Category:Definitions of life or some such; but this is a collection of things that some people (who?) think are borderline alive. Much I assumes on one's point of view (seems subjective inclusion criteria). Many people of faith believe that Jesus is alive; others say he died in the 1st century and stayed dead. So, is Jesus alive? If you cut off the tentacles of a jellyfish, are they alive? Is one's finger alive? Are people frozen in cryostasis alive? Is an embryo in vitro alive? Is Schrodinger's cat alive? We can ponder these forever, but we cannot objectively categorize on this... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow -- We have the potential for a valid category here, but we need a better name and inclusion criteria before we can keep it. I am not qualified to sugfgest a target. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what you may be thinking of is Non-cellular life. Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2013 (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:Waxwings[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:  Relisted at 2013 JUN 10 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both names refer to the same family. Not sure what direction the merge should go. Ucucha (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone searching is more likely to use the English name. I suspect a reader who knows the scientific name wouldn't need to search, since there are only a handful of members anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody searching is going to use the search box which will direct them to Waxwing. I don't mind the common name tree, Category:Birds by common name. But the category will only come up if someone uses the advanced search box ... --Lquilter (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2013 (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:African Warblers[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: speedy rename WP:C2A. – Fayenatic London 05:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Common names for families are in lowercase (cf. Category:Old World warblers). Ucucha (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2013 (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:Reissue albums[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too many albums have been reissued at one point or another for this to be a viable category, whether it be during the mid to late 80s when older albums were reissued on CD, or later remastered versions, or the more recent trend of releasing "special", "deluxe", or "expanded" editions not long after the album was initally released containing additional tracks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much every album gets re-issued at some point. Not defining to the album in any way at all. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'd say this is non-defining, per Lugnuts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Maybe most of the albums are reissued, however only few of them have a notable articles on Wikipedia. What's the problem with the category? Cause I can't see any. — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here there is confirmation bias at work: the albums we're familiar with are usually popular enough to be also reissued. This doesn't mean most albums are reissued -probably many more albums are not reissued at all. There is no rational reason to delete the category. --Cyclopiatalk 09:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-defining, and vague, to boot. If we had this category we'd have "books with second editions" and so on. Plus, just what is a "reissue"? additional material added, new formats, etc. To respond to Cycl & Tomica: If all notable albums are "reissued" then this category is going to be entirely superfluous. --Lquilter (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the amount of albums which are reissued (and there are pretty much), but which of them are notable enough to have separate articles here on Wikipedia. I don't see problem with a category that distinguishes a studio album from a reissue album which is not the same of course. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost any album in Category:Rhino Records albums can be categorized here then. A notable "re-issue" doesn't have to have its own article if the info is merged with its original issue. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes that's impossible, because the original album article will be enormous (like would be the case with Michael Jackson albums and Good Girl Gone Bad). Why not have if it charted separately? These discussion is simply logic less. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the ones that exist should be merged, I'm saying that the ones that don't need to be split would/should also be categorized as a reissue. Duran Duran's 1981 album was reissued with a brand new track (not unlike ones already categorized here) in 1983. Just because there isn't a separate article for it, it shouldn't be considered a reissued album when it clearly was? The category is too ill-defined because most every notable album originally released on vinyl has been reissued on CD, and often with new tracks not on the original album. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at the very least, to include all different types of reissued albums, separate between 2013 reissued albums, 2012 reissued albums, etc. It's a useful category.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there are for some reason articles on individual reissues of albums -- say, one album with an original release and three separate reissues -- I wouldn't categorize them as "reissues" because the criteria are too vague and the set is too overlapping with the set of all albums. --Lquilter (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2013 (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:Ginetta Cars[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: rename for now, without prejudice to re-creating if future content warrants it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per standard naming conventions for categories containing cars made by one manufacturer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, I'm not sure that your proposal is required, at least it isn't right now. The reason for this is, at least as far as I am aware, Ginetta have only ever built cars, whilst Lotus have built various things, and have several sub-companies and projects as well. I say this isn't required right now for Ginetta, because I intend to create the Team LNT article at some point, which would then fit this format. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:58, 20 May 2013 (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:Hydronyms[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators rationale: This category contains just one subcat and (directly) one page. Place names categories tend to get articles about places (and dab pages) put in them (I've recently removed a whole load of articles from this category). Removing this category would mean one less category to "seduce" editors and fewer categories for categorizers to patrol. The same applies to other subcategories of Category:Place names by type of place, but I'm trying this one first as a test case. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. I imagine this category was just an arbitrary grouping of similar names by Sheynhertz-Unbayg. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I remember correctly, it was mostly dab pages that included some Romanian rivers. DexDor (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge as above. Neutralitytalk 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. We get too many unnecessaryt samll categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_20&oldid=1146512632"