Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 23 February 25 >

February 24[edit]

Category:The Hunger Games trilogy[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) 01:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Hunger Games trilogy article has been merged with The Hunger Games article, and the former's category now only includes three pages as a result. I think there is no longer a reason for these two categories to be separate. Charles Essie (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per main article merge. Both concepts are clearly dealing with the series. SFB 22:11, 2 March 2015 (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:Latter-day Saint Wikipedians[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. – Fayenatic London 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate user categories.The capitalized version is correct. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Technically, a "Latter-day Saint" is a member of the LDS Church, while a "Latter Day Saint" is a broader term, encompassing any adherent of the broader movement, but I don't think this narrow and hairsplitting distinction is necessary to make in this context. We can just use the broader of the two terms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete great for a social site, but no help in building an encyclopedia. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement which one may join (irrespective of whether one is or isn't an LDS member) to collaborate on relevant articles, but we ought not personal religious categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's quite a variety of these types of categories in Category:Christian Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians by religion. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for CFD to discuss all of these categories together. To me, it also makes a lot more sense to have some type of categories for people "interested in" editing content about particular religions (such as WikiProject membership categories) rather than categories for editors' personal religions. Of course, the two will often overlap, but equally of course—not always. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should all be gotten rid of - it doesn't matter a whit what one's religion is - we're supposed to edit using an NPOV regardless. So, putting your viewpoint on politics, religion, etc. out there really doesn't encourage NPOV cooperation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a distinction, although in reality the overwhelming majority of people will be in the smaller category. It has also been convincingly argued that at least in the case of Latter-day Saints they are not only a religious group but an ethnic group. Thus a good collorary is Category:Jewish Wikipedians. Whether these categories are useful should not be considered in isolation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though a majority will be in the Latter-day Saints category, all of them can be put in the Latter Day Saints category, and there's not really any use having both. I don't think anyone could make a convincing argument that Latter-day Saints constitute an ethnic group that is distinct from Latter Day Saints. Many Mormon fundamentalists are as ethnically "Mormon" as anyone, and they are Latter Day Saints, not Latter-day Saints. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2015 (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:Ancient Greek sites by country[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 action. – Fayenatic London 18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. Per actual content, Category:Ancient Greek sites by country is not a by-country category at all. Let's merge Central and Western Asia so to make it a by-continent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative, not only for easier navigation by location but also and especially for including "archaeological" which better clarifies the scope of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Ancient Greek sites in Africa‎, Category:Ancient Greek sites in Western Asia‎, Category:Ancient Greek sites in Central Asia‎, and Category:Ancient Greek sites in Europe‎ to Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites
Delete Category:Ancient Greek sites by country as it gets empty with the prior merge.
Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why all ancient Greek sites should be merged in one category, without a geographical distinction (per modern country?).Alexikoua (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal aims to keep a geographical distinction, per modern country. There will be some 15 country child categories which is very manageable. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose an administrative close for this discussion, because meanwhile we started discussing additional categories next to the ones that were nominated. Supposedly an administrative close would allow to go for a fresh nomination that would include the nomination of really all categories that were discussed here.
Note to closer: could you ping me when closing? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a general response to the above comments by Marcocapelle. The inherent problem is that these are all part of other category trees. What seems to be breaking things are the "by continent" parent categories. Once they are removed, the rest fit the category system. But deleting the "by country" cat is a bad idea due to how it is placed in several other category trees. The goal being navigation. - jc37 15:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. I realize this has meanwhile become a pretty confusing discussion. That's also why I would rather prefer a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (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:Objects within 100 Gly of Earth[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All objects in the known Universe fit into this category. The text is also factually inaccurate. My apologies if this is in the wrong place. nagualdesign 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that there have been the existing categories for 10 ly, 100 ly, 1000 ly, 10000 ly, 100000 ly, 1000000 ly, 10000000 ly, and 100000000 ly, I figured it would only make sense to continue with the rest of it. Yes the text may be inaccurate, but that can be fixed without deleting the category. It also serves a non-redundant, simple purpose, to include all distant objects further than 10 Gly, and create a category for the most distant objects in the universe, of which there can't be more than 50-100 known. If you were to delete this category, you would have to delete all the others, which would lead to the question of exactly where to cut off, especially considering many of these categories existed without challenge for months or years. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category tags fixed. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The categories beyond 10 million light years are completely useless, they don't even define distance properly, as your category 10Gly does not either. Cosmological redshift means that light travel distance is distinct from comoving distance, and for all objects residing at cosmological distances will have atleast two different distances for each object. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like someone knowledgeable on astronomy in wikipedia to enter into this. Perhaps the other articles' creator, JorisvS? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These categories serve to group objects at various distances from us for easier navigation. It makes sense to have a category for those objects not included in any of the other distance categories. Given that the 100 Gly category includes all the objects in the Universe not included in the 10 Gly category and hence "100 Gly" is not an actual cut-off point, I think it makes sense to rename it to something like Category:Objects beyond 10 Gly of Earth. --JorisvS (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The category as currently defined would include every object ever observed (and not just astronomical ones either). The description text is confusing and shows a lack of understanding of distance measures in cosmology. All of these related categories are arbitrary and fail WP:ARBITRARYCAT. They also overlap - each would logically includes the previous one as a subcategory. They all suffer from the fact that distances in astronomy are notoriously uncertain, and observational uncertainties would often span two (or even three) categories. They're also using the wrong units - professional astronomers overwhelmingly measure distances in parsecs, not light-years. Once you get to extragalactic distances, there are many possible definitions of 'distance', and none of the categories explain which one they're supposed to be used with - making the larger distance categories essentially useless. Finally, why would anyone want to browse such a category 'for easier navigation'? Objects located at similar distances but different directions have no connection whatsoever beyond a coincidental value of one coordinate, which has no conceivable interest to a reader. I could go on, but that's plenty of reasons for deletion. Modest Genius talk 23:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. I've also notified WT:AST of this discussion. Modest Genius talk 23:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Here from WT:AST.) At cosmological distances, lookback time is more commonly used than any distance in Gpc. (Professionals really use redshift, since that's the model-and-Hubble constant-independent measurement, but that's probably too arcane for a Wikipedia category.) Lookback time is equivalent to the light travel distance (one that's rarely used, for good reason). So in that sense, Gly isn't crazy. As the lookback time gets significant, the grouping actually is somewhat interesting, not because the objects are at a similar distance but because they're at a similar (earlier) point in the Universe's evolution. But on small scales (ie small enough so that the Universe is inhomogeneous), distance doesn't mean much; something 25000 ly away in the Galactic disk is very, very different than and completely unrelated to something 25000 ly away perpendicular to the disk. Similarly, two galaxies 1 Mpc away aren't any different than one galaxy 1 Mpc away and one galaxy 100 Mpc away — they're all local enough so that the Universe hasn't changed much in the time the light has traveled to us. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, at cosmological distances redshift is used. But at anything smaller than a supercluster of galaxies, parsecs are the unit of choice. That particular critique was of the whole category structure, not just the 100Gly category. Modest Genius talk 22:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At cosmological distances, we should be using redshift to define distance, not lightyears; as both lookback time, light travel distance and comoving distance are all calculated values coming out of redshift, Hubble constant and other effects. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we keep the categories, rename them to something like (objects >1–10 ly from Earth; objects >10–100 ly from Earth; objects >100–1000 ly from Earth). But I have no opinion one way or the other on whether to keep the categories. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ashill about renaming the categories so they are more specific. Deleting a categories for stellar mass objects less than ~20 light-years from the Sun would be foolish. -- Kheider (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and reorganize according to the scheme suggested by Ashill directly above. I like the concept of these categories, just not the current implementation. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ; that's just stupid. It doesn't even indicate if this is comoving distance or light travel distance, same with 10Gly, where almost the entire universe exists within that light travel distance (the entire universe exists with 15Gly light travel distance) Indeed, the only category that should be kept is the 10ly category, for "local" region around the Solar System. Everything else is INDISCRIMINATE since at 100ly, it will collect potentially thousands of articles, so not useful for navigation. Indeed, for anything not very close by (ie. something like 10ly, or 5pc or something just as small), it isn't even notable that they're that close to Earth, so not defining, unless they are very close, or are the first of their type, which would not lead to distance categorization, since there'd be only one. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say any stellar mass object within 20 ly of the Sun is notable by definition. There are only about 100 known stellar systems within ~20 light-years. -- Kheider (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We only currently have categories at 10 and 100 ly, and 20ly is similar to "5pc or something like small" ; so "20ly" would be acceptably small by that count. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for any object at cosmological distances, there is a significant difference between comoving distance and light travel distance, and any categories pertaining to this realm will necessarily need to indicate which distance measure is being used to define the category as part of the category name, otherwise the category is useless as it doesn't define what "distance" means. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all there are numerous "nice" and "ilikeit" categories in the astronomy area, this is one, this entire series is one, the "Bayer objects", "Flamsteed objects", "Messier objects" is not defining for the object, it merely shows up in someone's catalog. Imagine lumping all ancient cities into "Ptolemy cities", "Stephanos cities", "Pliny cities", "Pausanias cities" categories according to which ancient author catalogs them? Ugh. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- what possible use is a category that contains every physical thing in the Universe? Reyk YO!
  • Suggestion - Perhaps a more useful tool for readers would be an article that contains a large table, with astronomical objects listed in order of redshift, including (approximate/known) distance in various measurements. Objects 'beyond 10Gly' are certainly an interesting group as they provide a window on the early Universe, so to speak. But distance, however you measure it, is a continuum, and to arbitrarily chop the Universe into 1Gly groupings seems completely pointless. nagualdesign 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
..Actually, there's already a list of the most distant astronomical objects. Maybe just work on that? nagualdesign 18:47, 26 February 2015 (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:Deputy Lieutenants of Haddingtonshire[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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Haddingtonshire is an archaic name for the Scottish lieutenancy area of East Lothian. The head article Lord Lieutenant of East Lothian does not distinguish the two names.
If the merger proceeds, the old title should be recreated as a {{category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 24 February 2015 (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:Subcultures of religious movements[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. – Fayenatic London 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. Proposed name more clearly explains the scope of the category, being the counterpart of Category:New religious movements that deals with movements outside established religions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The problem really is that the content is all Christian, because the dominating idea seems to be non-church movements. The whole notion of established religions really only makes sense within Christianity anyway. If one goes to the parent Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements, one sees it holding essentially all religions and spiritual movements. These don't seem to fit directly under that. Seyasirt (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Subculture is much broader, and covers things which are not "movements" as such.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any content in this category that you would consider to be subculture but not movement? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2015 (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.

Old Believer movement[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: Upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this tree shows a clear case of overcategorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the communities and believers children are not in need of further subcategorisation at this time and the reduction in categories will help navigation. SFB 22:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete per nom for larger, more navigable categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2015 (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:1959 establiishments in Alaska[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 to Category:1959 establishments in Alaska. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misspelling of existing category Category:1959 establishments in Alaska. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:12, 24 February 2015 (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:Polish popes[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) 03:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One member, with low likelihood of much expansion. Editor2020, Talk 02:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Could you perhaps include some other nationalities in this nomination as well? (Dutch, English, Portuguese and Spanish popes) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there are many popes in this large scheme and subcatting by nationality is standard. See eg 2013 cfd on Argentine popes which was a unanimous keep. Oculi (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. See 1, 2, 3 and so on. This history here appears to be long and consistent. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I said it in the Argentine discussion and I say it again - this is a silly exception. Why should popes have this exception and no other job holder? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some arguments in earlier discussions were:
- Oppose deleting the Argentinian category because the English category is not nominated, or vice versa. - Please let's then nominate the small categories together.
- Keep small categories per exception in rule in WP:SMALLCAT as part of a large established tree. - Well actually this isn't a large established tree because very few countries are represented.
As a possible compromise, I'd also be willing to discuss introducing a category for non-Italian popes. After all, once a pope, his nationality has lost most of its relevance as he has become a world leader. And if anything is still relevant, it's Italian versus non-Italian. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme is Category:People by occupation and nationality. Oculi (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SMALLCAT. It is standard in occupations/professions to divide up individuals according to nationality and I don't think this should be an exception. I was working on Descent categories and if 1 article was too small to have its own category, I have a few hundred (thousand?) other categories that would fall under this same rationale (but which shouldn't be deleted). Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't you be opposing? Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle's arguments. The SMALLCAT loophole has been so thoroughly exploited over the past several years, we're soon bound to have a scenario where every single article will have its own vanity category. The proliferation of such categories makes navigation between articles harder, not easier. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment follow-up nominations are: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_26#Category:Dutch_popes and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_26#Category:English_popes. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (again) The SMALLCAT exception ("... unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country.") of course exactly applies here. If you don't like it, try to get an new exception to the policy. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my god per [1]. SFB 22:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT and a long history of this position supported in many previous discussions. This is not an exception in WP:SMALLCAT, but rather a specific case covered there. If you want to change small categories, please start with albums which are more expansive and more of an issue. This is a logical set of categories and no case has been presented here to override the long established precedent! Bottom line there is nothing new present here to change a long established guideline and previous consensus opinions. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Popes by nationality and all its subcats, except: Greek, Syrian, Italian, and French, which should be re-catted to Category:Popes. German is questionable due to conflation of "German" meaning of the Germanic peoples", rather than "of nationality of the country Germany". - jc37 02:10, 6 March 2015 (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:Wikipedians that are cats[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 delete per WP:G3 as a hoax. Cats are wonderful, but they don't edit encyclopedias. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Completely useless joke category. Inappropriate user categorization per WP:USERCAT. - Eureka Lott 01:40, 24 February 2015 (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/2015_February_24&oldid=1176369025"