Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.51.200.101 (talk) at 04:13, 10 March 2015 (→‎Objects by distance from earth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 7 March 9 >

March 8

Category:Greek Orthodox churches

Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid confusion whether this is about church organizations or church buildings (see also: Category:Church). The nomination is C2C to Category:Church buildings and Category:Church buildings by denomination. Opposed for speedy rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. See Category:Lutheran churches, Category:Catholic churches, Category:Methodist churches, etc. Virtually all of our categories for articles about individual parishes/congregations/insert-other-terminology-here use simply "churches", regardless of the faith, because we cover both the building and the group that occupies it in the same article. For example, see Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church (Steubenville, Ohio). If we rename this category, it implies that we'll also have a separate category for parishes: if we don't have a parishes category tree, readers and editors will become confused, and if we do have a parishes category tree, virtually all articles will be in both trees — talk about redundancy. Unless we have so much information that WP:SPLIT is appropriate, it's absurd to have separate articles on buildings and the groups that occupy them, and unless we're having separate articles, we don't need separate categories. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article fits perfectly in a church buildings category only. Naturally the article also discusses the different users of the building, that's simply what you would expect from an article about a building, but that's no compelling reason to create a category for users parallel to a buildings category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? It equally would belong in a parishes category. The ambiguity that you identify is intentional, because it can include both occupants and buildings, unlike your proposed name. It would be thoroughly unhelpful to move some articles into a buildings category and others into a parishes category; it would be downright confusing to have extensive overlap between "GO church buildings" and "GO parishes"; and it would be impossible to run long-term with "GO church buildings" but not "GO parishes", because someone would soon notice its absence and create it. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose As per above, we do not distinguish between congregations and buildings. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hellenistic Thessalian colonies

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, contains only one article, and it is uncertain if this one city has been a Greek colony at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Furius (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hellenistic colonies by country

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Given the content of this category, the category should rather be named Category:Ancient Greek sites by country. However, the latter category already exists and it contains all the content of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a space which could include Hellenistic colonies for which no archaeological remains are known? Also, this seems to be pointing in the opposite direction from your proposal below for Syria and Iraq? Furius (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is definitely space for that: Category:Hellenistic colonies by origin‎. The proposals are not really contradictory, because for ancient cities (including colonies) it makes sense to categorize by contemporary geography. While for archaeological sites - which are part of current science and current tourism - it makes sense to categorize by current country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leninist parties

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Superflous category, already well covered by Category:Communist parties. The concept of communist parties originated in Lenin's though, developed through the 21 conditions of the Communist International and Marxism-Leninism. There are a number of Communist Parties that have moved in order directions in later years (such as the French Communist Party), and Leninism and Marxism-Leninism are not exact synonyms, but trying to double-categorize 99.99% of all CPs as both 'Communist' and 'Leninist' adds no value. Soman (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:5th-century BC Greek colonies

Nominator's rationale: Not sure about this. On the one hand you might expect quite some potential for this category. On the other hand, Greek colonies are abundantly categorized already (by origin, by current country, by ancient region), besides it seems like nobody cares about this 5th-century category (poorly parented, poorly populated) and finally the category doesn't have any xth-century sister categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's (probably) useful to categorise Greek colonies by chronology in some way and theoretically possible to assign many (but not all) Greek colonies to centuries. I'd think, though, that broader chronological periods, like the Iron Age one and the Hellenistic one are more useful. For instance, Naucratis ought to be categorised geographically with Alexandria, but we lose something if it is not also categorised chronologically with Al-Mina and Rhegium which represent part of the same period of expansion. Furius (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on Iron Age and Hellenistic ones, but the nominated category just falls in between. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek colonies by time of foundation

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT (not part of a large tree). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a useful parent for Iron Age and Hellenistic, and if we retain the fifth-century category, it will be a useful parent for that, too. What's more, there are three centuries between the Hellenistic and Iron Age periods, if I understand rightly from the description atop Category:Iron Age Greece and the intro to Hellenistic period. We could easily fill this hole with other century categories, or with individual colony articles if we decide that the fifth-century category is unhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objects by distance from earth

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All these categories are completely WP:ARBITRARYCAT. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although rename to "light-years" for clarity. It's quite helpful to categorise heavenly objects by their distance from us, and there's no way to do it without being arbitrary. If we're doing this, a logarithmic scale is the simplest way: the farther away things are from us, the less we know about them. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the degree that this is correct, a list sorted by distance would make more sense than a category sorted by default sort key. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at 10Gly light-travel-distance, this would collect much of the universe (the universe is less than 15Gly light-travel-distance to the edge) At 100Mly, the distance measurements already significantly diverge from comoving distance and light travel distance, so anything located at cosmological distances make no sense being organized by lightyear, and instead should be organized by redshift. And any distance in the 100ly and more categories would collect thousands of potential topics, making it completely WP:NONDEF. Further, distance uncertainties ramp up once you get past the Local Group, so even categorizing things correctly is problematic with the initial measurements and then conversion calculations from the measured quantities into distances. The only possibly useful category is the 10ly one (or similar small size, like 5pc), since it clearly for things nearby the Earth. Everything else is not defining. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Asia‎

Nominator's rationale: Ancient Greeks didn't have colonies that far in Asia. The archaeological sites in Syria and Iraq are remains of Alexander the Great's military campaign and of the subsequent Hellenistic era in Syria and Iraq. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Syria at least contains some Greek sites which are pre-Hellenistic: e.g. Ras al-Bassit. I admit that I struggle to think of any Greek sites in Iraq before the Hellenistic, but some small settlement doesn't seem out of the question as a possibility (The Branchadai of Miletos were taken away east by the Persians, for instance). In general, it seems better to cast the broader net. Furius (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana, 4th Class

Nominator's rationale: there are 4 classes of this Estonia order, the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana; how can recipients of the 4th class be a digtinguishing characteristic any more than of other national orders? (many are unsourced, as well, in their articles, where it is not always even mentioned )

FWIW, Gauck, the only famous person here, received the Collar of the Order, a much higher distinction. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:George Gershwin music recordings

Nominator's rationale: This needs to be refined or split or something: it includes albums by several performers but is categorized under schemes by performer, when the performer is not George Gershwin. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_8&oldid=650712244"