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 nomination rationale doesn't justify deletion, but there could well be unacceptably overly broad application going on here. Mainspace categorisation, as unreferenced implication of facts, should be done conservatively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show that this term is actually used as broadly as its used for this category, its being overworked here. the inventor of the phrase may have created social sciences, but i have never heard this term before, and i really dont think its so common as to be used such a high level category here. its a form of WP:Synthesis.(mercurywoodrose)76.254.33.184 (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be noted that there are two issues here. One is the utility and appropriateness of the category itself. The broad application of the category comes directly from the main page, with references.
The other point is the application of classification to categories within that broad tree. I will happily revert my classification additions if consensus supports a revert, though perhaps that would be better discussed within the category talk page. (I authored both the category, and the classifications, but not the main page.) --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still would argue that the main and the category synopsis provide clear boundaries to this category. But I am happy to bow to the public will. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any reasonably objective and non-arbitrary way of defining the boundaries of this category. The nominator's addition to it of Category:Sociology and also of Category:Organizational culture suggests to me that he sees its scope as extending to pretty much anything to do with groups of people. I see some justification for that, but this exactly what makes the category unworkable: it could include most of the human experience, and if it's that broad it is simply useless clutter. It would be much better to expand the article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (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 from Joliet, Montana
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:People from Bluffdale, Utah
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.
Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT, without prejudice to recreating any categories which can be populated with more than 6 articles. Some of these settlements have expanded a lot on recent years (e.g. North Ogden & Herriman), so there may be more notable residents whose location has not yet been recorded on WP. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 14 September 2012 (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 from Raytown, Missouri
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.
Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. None of the target categs are in any danger of becoming overpopulated: the biggest is Category:People from St. Louis County, Missouri, with only 90 articles. However the categories for these small towns are all underpopulated, and impede navigation. Please note that the status of the place is irrelevant here. Per WP:CAT#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." If a category is broken up into a lot of tiny categories, it is much less useful for navigation What matters is solely whether there are enough articles for these categories to be useful for navigation. If the categories-by-counties were equally underpopulated, I would support upmerging them too ... and if we only had 50 biographical articles for the whole of the USA, I would oppose spreading them across 50 by-state categories.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I withdrew Richmond, Missouri. There may be as many as 10 notable people from there. I've added two persons, so the category has four now....William00:23, 15 September 2012 (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 from Puerto Rico
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:Merge and leave a redirect. This is a new category, and the old one contains a substantial set of sub-cats. Nevertheless I did not take this to the Speedy page as the rest of Category:People by territory in the United States has "People from...", so a reverse merge might be in order. Note that Puerto Rican people is the lead article, but it states that "Puerto Rican people" can include people from elsewhere with PR heritage. – FayenaticLondon19:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. The "People from Foo" format avoids adjectives which can be non-neutral in some cases (tho not, I think, this one), and it avoids confusion/dispute about who qualifies under the adjective. (To be a Fooish person, do you need to be a citizen of Fooland? Have been born there? etc). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge -- This is a common format, whose precise nature is purposely fuzzy. A person can be from where they were born; where they now live; where they used to live; etc. As long as it is a sub-cat, there is no reason why a "descent" category should not also appear. Mixed race people can have several such categories. Attempts to define these too precisely end off with arguments over semantics. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge The main issue I see here is that at present Category:Puerto Rican people is misued in many cases for people of Puerto Rican descent who have never been residents of the island, some of whom have never set foot on the island. This category is meant to be limited to those who at one point were residents of the island, and we need to name it in a way that people will use it according to its intent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2012 (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:Modern Physics
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.
Delete due to having no defined inclusion criteria. Would this be physics theories first proposed in the 20th and 21st centuries? where does "modern" start? and what was modern in 1920 may be considered differently now.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See the head article Modern physics, which defines the term. I am not sure that it is a sufficiently precise distinction to make for a viable category, and even it is tightly-defined I wonder whether the technical definition will be sufficiently understood by readers and editors who will infer a looser plain English meaning. I will seek input from WikiProject Physics. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The situation seems idempotent. Most people think of "modern physics" as 20th century physics: quantum mechanics, chaos, and (special/general) relativity, which are of course included. If they're deleted it's not like much damage is done. Maschen (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Special relativity is both classical and modern, and should be listed in both. General relativity is modern. Special relativity is classical in that it operates perfectly well with Newtonian mechanics, and modern, in that it works perfectly well with general relativity and quantum mechanics. That's what makes special relativity special - it's the bridge. Bridges have to sit on both ends. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or find a better name). I normally dislike "modern" categories, but this concerns the new physics of post-Newtonian discoveries. Yes the theories are now well-established, but they still differ from the simpler physics that is a good approximation at the level at which we live, where Newtonian physics reain a good description of what happens. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The divide between Newtonian and non-Newtonian Physics is pretty well understood. It ends with the Michelson/Morely experiment and begins with Einstein and the relativistic/quantum physics era.Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BHG - as a non-physicist, if someone asked you what 'classical physics' refers to, would you understand the definition? Modern physics is really the best word to describe this particular concept. What we should do is write a descriptor in the Category explaining what the category is about. That would reduce miscatergorisation without discarding the term preferred by the literature and preserving the classical/modern distiction. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Benkenobi, I hope that my secondary-level physics education was enough to teach me a rough grasp of the distinction, and I am sure you are correct that "modern physics" and "classical physics" are entirely appropriate as the titles of articles. However, category names are used differently to article titles. They appear at the bottom of articles without explanation, and are usually added through the very useful WP:HOTCAT, which sadly does not display any of the explanations which may be present on the category page. For those reasons, there is long history of adding greater precision to category names ... because ambiguity leads to miscategorisation, which is a maintenance nightmare. (One example is that the city of Birmingham in England is the primary topic for that title, but it is categorised under Category:Birmingham, West Midlands because of the ambiguity with Category:Birmingham, Alabama). In this case, it is quite reasonable to expect that competent but non-specialist editors will be inclined to use the category according to the plain English definition of modern as "recent", rather than according to the technical definition. Topics such as the Green–Kubo relations, Johnson–Nyquist noise, the Sears–Haack body or the (disputed) Mpemba effect, appear to me to be classical physics, despite being within the era of modern physics. That's why I think that this category is viable only if it can have a less ambiguous name. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Classical physics includes relativity. It is a classical theory, and not a quantum theory. "Modern physics" is vague since it is frequently used to denote quantum theories versus classical theories, but this category contains relativity, which is not quantum. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2012 (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:Box office bombs
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.
Delete, as the article Box office bomb states, there is no accepted definition or strict criteria, thus this categories arbitrary cutoff for qualifying renders the category too subjective to stand. with no clear inclusion criteria, the category becomes a pejorative label for articles, which, if this was a category for people (say, "directors of box office bombs") would be a violation of BLP for those alive.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the reasons given at the template discussion: arbitrary criteria for the definition of a box-office bomb. Lists are much better for compiling this sort of thing since they can contextualise the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only is there no defined criteria for inclusion, but no one knows what exactly to look at to try to decide inclusion. Is it just level of reciepts, level of reciepts to cost of movie, or do we add in anticipated earnings, so that if I make a movie with the intent of no one wanting to see it it is not a bomb, only if I actually thought people would like it could it ever be a bomb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2012 (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:American oil industrialists
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:Upmerge. As a result of the current CfD discussion, all oil industrialists categories were renamed Businesspeople in the oil industry categories, except this category. Propose to upmerge it as the upper category American businesspeople in the oil industry does not have any other entry that just this category. If it will be decided to keep this category separately, also categories like British oil industrialists and Russian oil industrialists should be re-created to follow the unified categories structure. Beagel (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. if there is a razors edge difference between the two, i cant see it matters, at least for our purposes.(mercurywoodrose) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (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:Shopping malls in the United States by county
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 for now. If no other states gain mall-by-county categories within a month or so, then this mid-level container category can be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, reconcile with Category:Shopping malls in the United States, which is organized by state, not county. Given the size of the various state categories, I would tend to find the county level organization unnecessary; California may be the only state where it can be justified. I would also note that other states which break up into subcats below the state level do so on other bases besides county (typically city or mtero area). Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most states that have a county only have one. It seems about as popular to subdivide the shopping malls by metro-area, and many states do not have any subdivisions at all. The by state, and then subdividing the state as needed works. There is no reason to create this category which will encorage by county categories, when most US counties have no shopping malls at all, and ever Macomb County, Michigan with over 800,000 people, more than at least 5 states, has only 4 shopping malls.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is an important distinction. We are not suggesting that any existing by county category be removed, only that in general a by county for shopping malls scheme should not be encoraged in all cases as the default.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2012 (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:Shopping centers in the San Francisco Bay Area
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 in California
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: As per my other proposal on the San Francisco Bay Area, this seems to be an unnecessary layer between Category:Geography of California and the subcategories and pages found in these two categories. Category:Lists of places in California is really for sets of specialized lists, and it doesnt need to go away, as they bunch all types of places together and it serves a purpose (list of geographical locales in california would be an awful name for a category). all the rest of the items here can easily fit within Geography. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2012 (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:Places in the San Francisco Bay Area
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.
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
