Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 2 August 4 >

August 3[edit]

Category:Ukrainian war crimes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Category:Ukrainian war crimes

Category:Messenger particles[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 to Category:Force carriers. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category since it is another name for the gauge boson category. OpenScience709 (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - the nom refers to Category:Gauge bosons, and I note that the 4 articles in Category:Messenger particles are all in the target (which makes it a subcategory of Category:Gauge bosons rather than identical). I also note that Messenger particle is a redirect to Force carrier, an article distinct from Gauge boson. So at least Category:Messenger particles should be renamed to Category:Force carriers and perhaps the 2 articles should be merged if they cover the same topic (of which I know nothing). Oculi (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that the two are identical in that they are essentially two names for the same thing. In principle messenger particles should be expanded to include the gauge bosons articles, just no one bothered to do that. OpenScience709 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - They're different categories since the Higgs and Graviton aren't spin-1. Also more fundamentally, just because things are part of the same category, doesn't mean that they aren't also part of another category, it's not "redundant". Categories help with labeling data for other purposes.
    • Gauge boson does not imply spin 1, that's what vector boson means. Meanwhile the graviton can be considered a gauge boson of spin 2. According to the Oxford Reference for gauge boson (https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095844744), the graviton can be considered a gauge boson when treating GR as a gauge theory. My point is that messenger particle and gauge boson are two terms for the same thing. Although you may be making a good point with the Higgs, making it a possibly valid category. But that really depends on how one chooses to define messenger particle in the first place. If it is a particle mediating AA -> AA interactions, then the Higgs is fine. But then one could say that most other particles are mediators too. Mesons, especially pions, are messengers too. Are electrons (and other leptons) messenger particles mediating photon scattering through box diagrams? I think this needs a more specific definition. OpenScience709 (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing you cited to literally says "A spin-one vector boson" as the first sentence. Higgs and Graviton aren't spin-1. Come on. Miserlou (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And it ends with "Treating gravity, as described by the general theory of relativity, as a gauge theory, the gauge boson is the massless spin-two graviton." Its more accurate to say that gauge bosons are usually spin 1. One can make a similar argument from the Particle Data Group section on "Gauge and Higgs bosons" which also includes the graviton. Considering that the graviton is not a Higgs boson, by implication it is not the worst to consider it a gauge boson. I would also point out that Britannica has for its section on gauge bosons a set of alternative titles of: "carrier particle, force-carrier particle, messenger particle" (https://www.britannica.com/science/gauge-boson. However I can see that this is maybe inaccurate, since it really depends on how exactly you want to define a messenger particle. I fully agree that the Higgs is not a gauge boson, and whether it is a messenger particle depends on the particular definition. OpenScience709 (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OpenScience709: what implication does this have for your nomination? (If any at all.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the question of whether a graviton is a gauge boson or not will determine which category it should be. As for the messenger particle category, my question is now more that if it were to be kept, what exactly would it contain, and whether such a category is useful for Wikipedia. This requires a firm definition of the category. We could create many many other categories, but that does not mean that they are all useful or necessary; for example a category of Particles of electric charge 1, or category of Abelian gauge bosons, or category of massive gauge bosons. All valid, yet are they necessarily useful? Maybe some are, and maybe some aren't. Not sure if the messenger particle category is useful at this time. It would contain the gauge bosons as a subcategory, and the Higgs, maybe the pion or some other mesons, maybe even the leptons and quarks, depending on the definition. But then, what is the precise definition?? OpenScience709 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My view on this category is of course going to change depending on the arguments made by other people. My current position seems to be that it's a largely unnecessary (and somewhat ill defined) category. Unnecessary due to its general lack of use in (academic) particle physics. It is more often employed as a term in popular science. For example, on arXiv it only comes up 20 times in abstracts and in many of these this is the only usage of it. Similarly, in the entire Particle Data Group PDF (https://cds.cern.ch/record/1481544/files/PhysRevD.86.010001.pdf) (a rather good authority on particle physics), the term is not mentioned once. Its rough usage, especially in non academic science, warrants it being talked about in a Wikipedia article. But a category that would probably be largely empty? My current view is no. If anything, that is probably now the strongest argument against it: it is not really used academically (and is hence somewhat ill defined). I could of course be wrong about all of this, hence why additional input here is useful. OpenScience709 (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2022 (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:NHS hospitals in South East England[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Category:NHS hospitals in South East England

Category:Buildings and structures of the Rajputs[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is already one Category:Rajput architecture. This seems to be a duplicate category. Venkat TL (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge (preferably) or else merge. As far as I can see both categories contain just buildings and structures, no topic articles on this architecture apart from Rajput architecture. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The new name is more consistent with other cultures and styles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:13, 6 August 2022 (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:People by urban-type settlement in Ukraine[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: listify & merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
more subcategories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, very poorly populated category tree, most subcategories only contain one article. The concept of "urban-type settlement" may compare to a small town, with typically 4000 to 8000 inhabitants. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I will strike/withdraw these two (three) categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I'd better clarify, I meant listify ALL the nominated categories into the corresponding town article – not just those three. – Fayenatic London 22:40, 4 August 2022 (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:Kentucky women artists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Category:Kentucky women artists

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_3&oldid=1104176766"