< September 2 September 4 >

September 3

1 article University categories

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. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. These categories each contain the namesake main article and nothing else. No alumni subcategory, no building article, no sports team, no student organization. I don't see how these categories can possibly aid navigation today but no objection to recreating later if more content appears. No need for any upmergers because the single articles are already well categorized. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. – RevelationDirect (talk) 23:23, 3 September 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:Advent churches

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) 22:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, over-categorisation by WP:SHAREDNAME. List already exists at Church of the Advent. The category creator's only defence offered on the talk page is that similar categories exist on Commons and in German Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 3 September 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:Military of Oceania

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Military by continent is not consistent, "in" is used for Africa, Antarctica, Asia and Europe; "of" is used for Oceania, North and South America. I prefer "in" for continents as the military does not belong to the continent unlike for countries. I have added Central America and the Caribbean which are not continents but the same rationale applies. Tim! (talk) 18:18, 3 September 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:Marine engineers and naval architects

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: split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. A merger into the nominated category was opposed last year at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_11#Category:Naval_architects, partly because "Marine engineering starts off by distinguishing marine engineers as something unrelated to design". – Fayenatic London 13:20, 3 September 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:Writers on Muslimophobia

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:Scholars of Islamophobia. Users can decide whether the articles in question are appropriately in that category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category (populated by 2) employing a term apparently intentionally crafted to avoid syntactical overlap but duplicate, to at least some extent, the already existing category Islamophobia. I must admit I never heard of "Muslimophobia" until I saw this category. Maybe it's a new word, given that Muslimophobia (article created by same editor who created the category CFDed here, surprise, surprise) redirects to Islamophobia.
Islamophobia (the category) has already been consolidated into Anti-Islam. This kind of nonsensical creation of categories is especially inappropriate when dealing with such an important and divisive topic. Perhaps the category creator meant Writers on Islamophobia but I am not doing his/her homework, and such a category could likely be included in the parent category (Anti-Islam), but which itself would, IMO, be heavily subjective. How about Anti-Zionist writers on purported Islamophobia? That would be a more accurate description of Max Blumenthal, one of the two entries currently populating Writers on Muslimophobia. Quis separabit? 04:58, 3 September 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:Terminology

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCMISC: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Miscellaneous categories; merge subcategories to the base of the respective parent categories. fgnievinski (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded rationale: "X terms" categories are for miscellanea that don't fit in other subcategories of the parent main category. Furthermore, many "terms" categories have been deleted in the past (e.g., Publishing terms, Climbing terms, Aviation terminology) @DexDor, Qwertyus, and Marcocapelle:
Further expanded rationale: Terminology categories essay.
  • @Ceannlann gorm: It was given: WP:OCMISC. Why do you think these terms subcategories are not miscellaneous subcategories of their respective main parent categories? fgnievinski (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Agricultural terminology (for example) and many terms categories that have been previously deleted are/were being used as miscellaneous categories. DexDor (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SHAREDNAME could certainly apply. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Delete the category and the subcategories as too likely to be misused.
2. Ask one particular editor to trim all the excess pages, nominate non-terminological categories, etc. (A huge job, but I admit I'm tempted to Gnome my way through.)
3. Construct a policy to hatnote onto all of the subcategories to encourage proper use. (Something along the lines of DexDor's Terminology categories essay.)
4. Leave the situation as is.
?. Something else.
I would suggest 3. What do others think? -- Andrewaskew (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you may suspect from my earlier reply, I think it is too late for option 3 (it would have been the better option long time ago). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for trying guide this conversation to a resolution. For 3, I see hatnotes and category explanations as being ineffective since they don't show up in WP:HOTCAT which is how most categories are added. I would favor 2 or ?. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One idea for (?) is to start over, deleting these categories and then creating a set of "nomenclature" categories in the hope that editors are less likely to abuse them (and Category:Scientific nomenclature provides some grounds for hope). RockMagnetist(talk) 19:53, 7 September 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:Concepts by field

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 (that I can see). But there might be a vague agreement here that things need to be cleaned up and changed in some ways. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCMISC: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Miscellaneous categories; merge subcategories to the base of the respective parent categories. fgnievinski (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded rationale: same as for #Category:Terminology nomination above (as "concepts" plays the same role as "terms" in this case). fgnievinski (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose, additionally, upmerging the following subcategories into their respective main parent categories:

@Andrewaskew: For example, Category:Biological concepts is a misc cat of Category:Biology. fgnievinski (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgnievinski: Oh, if your intent is to delete or merge every subcategory, then those categories also need to be listed here and tagged. Laborious I know, but necessary for proper maintenance. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewaskew: ugh, ok -- done. fgnievinski (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: I assume you read WP:OCMISC, linked to above; which specific part of it you disagree? fgnievinski (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are really only two kinds of categories needed for abstract concepts (also known as mental representations or models): Concepts and theories. A theory is a collection of concepts. We can do without any of the other extraneous "paradigm"-type categories.Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current category structure makes no sense - for example it puts Category:Environmental social science concepts and Ocean heat content under Category:Neurophysiology. The whole Category:Concepts area is (currently) a mess (for example it's both a parent and a child of Category:Thought). DexDor (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhatimsayin: The "fundamental concepts" that you alluded to is an issue that has been discussed previously in the context of "key terminology" (see, e.g., Aviation_terminology); it ends up as a WP:ARBITRARYCAT. How can you strongly support the nomination of Category:Terminology above and oppose the present nomination of Category:Concepts by field? fgnievinski (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure I have explained why. There is a "term" for everything. That means a "terminology" category doesn't really categorize anything. However, in the case of concepts, there is a fundamental ontological category difference. Physical objects are not concepts, body parts are not concepts. In the case of things which have a substantial conceptual component, there is still as useful difference. A law may be based on a concept, but a law is not 'primarily' a concept. There actually is a well thought out reason for the concepts category, which unfortunately is perhaps not readily apparent to people ith no experience in ontology. I can tell you that it isn't arbitrary in the least. The "concepts" category description does a sufficient job. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at, for example, Category:Spaceflight concepts - many of the articles in that category (e.g. Lander (spacecraft), Sun sensor) are about objects and there are many others that afaics (I'm just an engineer, not an ontologist) can't be neatly categorized as an object or a concept (e.g. Propellant depot). Does Category:Spacecraft attitude control belong in the concepts category (it's a concept, but most of the articles in that category are about objects)? DexDor (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What should the inclusion criteria for such a concepts category be? For example, the Trick arrows article is (currently) in this concepts category, but Unstable molecules isn't (it's in Category:Fictional objects in comics). DexDor (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a well justified demarcation principle; currently "concepts" could be renamed "things" and it would serve the same distorted purpose, e.g., "Philosophy things". fgnievinski (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Youknowwhatimsayin: Can you please provide a link to the discussion(s) where the project reached consensus on these categories? I tried searching the archives, but couldn't find anything. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: The categories which are part of academic fields (biological concepts, concepts in physics, philosophical concepts) are there for a reason. Unfortunately, they were joined by some very questionable ones (wiki concepts, etc). The concepts category tree, in general, serves to organize Wikipedia in a very generally applicable way. Unfortunately, this proposal, and the people supporting it do not understand the situation, and it is difficult to explain. Suffice it to say that the people who actually are knowledgable in those academic areas understand what they are there for. In some cases they are there to keep articles out of other inappropriate categories where psuedoscholars would otherwise place them. It will be a significant loss. Upmerging will create chaos quite frankly. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a geophysicist and a member of WikiProject Physics since 2010, and I don't see any use for Category:Concepts in physics; nor do I remember any discussions of it or of any inappropriate categories we're guarding against. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhatimsayin, are you suggesting that how an article is categorized should depend upon whether it's part of an academic field or not? If so, you then have to decide whether each topic (engineering, spaceflight etc) is an academic field or not - do you think that's workable? If the purpose (i.e. inclusion criteria) of these categories can't be explained to editors (including editors who are experts in the particular fields) then that's not good categorization. Re "upmerging will create chaos" - please explain why you think that. DexDor (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As I mentioned, the renames would standardize the category names to all begin in a manner that is consistent with other similarly named cats. The applicable policies are WP:CATNAME, "Standard article naming conventions apply" and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' (or categories') titles". Painius  06:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is an unusual (and impressive) edit profile! How do you know none of the categories were deleted? RockMagnetist(talk) 23:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SHAREDNAME?[edit]
Given that it is within the fundamenatal "concepts" category, "concepts by field" is not the proper area of attention if your concern is overcat. We should be preserving this category (while cleaning out the non-academic fields), and getting rid of the outrageously blatantly useless overcat that the whole "terminology" category tree is. I have seen the argument made several times that this is "arbitrary" or "subjective." I can tell you that, no, it is not either in the least. Unfortunately it may appear that way if you have no idea about what is and is not a concept, or what is and is not subjective. Unfortunately explaining ontology to someone with no background in philosophy very often leaves people completely unimpressed with the explaination. I would just hope that if you are not versed in the subject matter, that you will defer to those who are. I realize that this is the same situation that happens all the time on WP where everybody is a know-it-all and cannot bear to defer to anyone based on such qualifications. I also realize that with this kind of explanation I am coming across as aloof or arrogant, and I sincerely apologize for that. However, I do not insert myself into, for instance, the biology categories and try to tell them how they should organize things. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of the article on Concepts in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "But the nature of concepts—the kind of things concepts are—and the constraints that govern a theory of concepts have been the subject of much debate." And a few lines down, "The three main options are to identify concepts with mental representations, with abilities, and with Fregean senses." Among the examples of possible concepts in the article are "Dave", "taller" and "cat". So even if someone were to precisely define what should be included in a concepts category without including everything, they may be pushing a point of view. I think the burden is on supporters of the category to explain how it should be used. For example, can you point to the subject of an article for which "concept" is a defining characteristic? Or can you point to a discussion where a consensus was reached on what should be classified as a concept? RockMagnetist(talk) 21:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhatimsayin: If you like ontologies, let's defer to Wikidata: "concept" (a mental representation or an abstract object) has many many instances; too broad to be useful? fgnievinski (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still feel this is useful internavigability. A trim is probably useful, but keep as above. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Waste management concepts currently includes Best management practice for water pollution, Best practicable environmental option, Biomass heating system, Bottle crate, Global waste trade, Green Dot (symbol), Sanitary engineering, Scottish Landfill Tax, Throw-away society and Total maximum daily load. For each of these articles an editor must have thought the article met the inclusion criteria of the "concepts" category. Please can you explain which (if any) of those articles you think belong in a concepts category. For info: I don't think any of those articles belong in Category:Central nervous system and hence (if the current category structure is correct) I don't think any of those articles belong in Category:Waste management concepts. DexDor (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concept vs Theory[edit]
So what should the inclusion criteria of a "Foobar concepts" category be? DexDor (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask, do you find the inclusion criteria in the parent category of the main category under discussion here to be wanting? and if so, what would you change? Painius  03:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concepts is not being considered for deletion, but your comment drew something to my attention. At the top level, there are plenty of subcategories that provide examples of what can be considered a concept, for example, Belief and Theories. So why not go through these divisions instead of through Concepts by field? If something can be classified as a theory, that is much clearer and easier to support with sources. For example, you can go from Theories to Scientific theories to Theoretical physics to Theory of relativity. You could also put the theory of relativity in Concepts in physics, but why bother? A theory is already a more specific kind of concept. So my question for you is - are there any concepts that are better organized by field? RockMagnetist(talk) 05:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think General relativity and Special relativity, which are both sorted to Category:Concepts in physics, are best left in that category along with articles like Spacetime. Those are "concepts", while the "Theory of relativity" is a theory about the concepts. There are many concepts like these, so yes, there are many concepts that are better organized by field, in this case the field of the science of physics. Painius  17:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: Wow, I'm surprised no one caught this one. General relativity and special relativity are physical theories, as they state right in the first line of each article; and Category:Theory of relativity is simply the collective term for both theories, as stated in the definition for this category. In other words, all three should be classified as theories. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody missed anything, RM – both theories also qualify as concepts. For example, GR has an "and" in the lead that explains that it is both a theory and "the current description of gravitation in modern physics" – so it is both a "theory" and a "concept". Painius  23:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that GR is a concept in some sense that is distinct from "theory"? How do you stand on the concept vs theory issue (below)? Is a theory a type of concept or not? RockMagnetist(talk) 23:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1st question) GR is both a concept and a theory – the term "general relativity" may be used as a shortened form of "Einstein's theory of general relativity", and it may also be used as a physics concept that describes gravitation. 3rd question) I'm not sure. I think that there are simple theories/hypotheses that can also be said to be concepts; however, what usually happens especially nowadays is that scientists take two or more concepts and use a hypothesis or theory to try to better understand those concepts. So a theory is commonly a formal description of the relationships of a set of concepts. 2nd question) There is an old saying: "Now don't get me started!" and that applies to your 2nd question. I could really go on and on about the issue of "concept vs. theory", mainly because in many ways it is such an "open-ended" topic. Basically, a concept is an "idea" whereas a theory is usually a formal description of ideas and their relationships. So to me, who is not by the way any kind of scientist, it's like saying that concepts are ideas and theories are ideas. I'm not sure that's helpful, but based on the knowledge I've picked up over the years, that's how I'd put it in a nutshell (and please remember that putting things in a nutshell is also not one of my fortes). With great effort, I will stop now hopefully before this becomes tl;dr. Painius  00:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., I'm not sure that settles anything. Maybe I should have asked: should theories be a subcat of concepts? If not, how should they be categorized? RockMagnetist(talk) 02:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In effect, I did answer that to the affirmative; however, that is just one person's opinion, and I could be wrong. Painius  06:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, the question is whether the relativity theory articles should be classified as concepts in some way that is distinct from theories. The evidence in favor of this is the statement that general relativity is "the current description of gravitation in modern physics". This is taken as a synonym for concept. However, I often see words like "description" used as synonyms for theory in scientific articles. A theory is, after all, an explanation of something. So the defining characteristics I would take from that sentence are "theory" and "gravitation", both of which are abundantly supported by sources, while "concept" is not. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A concept is an idea or an "abstraction", so all the concept cats are supposed to be filled with ideas and abstractions of the particular fields of study. Sometimes "theories" and "descriptions" overlap with concepts; however, in essence they are not the same things. You seem to say that "concepts" are not supported by sources, so concepts must not be allowed to be defining characteristics? If you don't know what something is, yet you have an "idea" of what it is, do you not have a working definition of it, at least until you learn more about it? Painius  02:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Dave Barry would say, I'm not making this up. I keep referring to the categorization guidelines, and it seems I need to refer to them again. As WP:DEFINING says, 'Categorization of articles must be verifiable.' And I have referred to this criterion several times in this discussion:

A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define (in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form) the subject as having.

That is certainly true of "theory" as applied to "relativity theory" - you can hardly get more common and consistent than having it in the name! It is not true of "concept" in some unspecified sense that is distinct from "theory". That is the problem with the concepts category in general - people who use it are applying some vague idea instead of looking at the sources. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And isn't it interesting how the first section of that essay begins?: A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. "A central 'concept' used..." – It would seem that the term "concept" may be a kind of a priori defining characteristic. Please try to accept that there are "ideas" and, yes, "vague abstractions" that do qualify to be "defined" by the term "concept". Even the not-so-vague idea of "defining characteristics of a subject of the article" may be defined as a "concept". Painius  19:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A theory is a collection of two or more concepts, whereas a concept stands alone. This is a more fundamental division than the division between scientific and philosophical theories. There are two ways to look at this situation. There is the pragmatic and ostensive way in which we need to have a place within each academic field category for the concepts which are within the subject matter of that field so that they don't clutter up those categories, and importantly don't end up in questionable pseudo-academic categories. The other way is the way someone was asking about inclusion criteria, which is to ask for a guiding statement of principle. A concept is pretty well defined this way in the parent category "concepts." "Field" should be strictly limited to scholarly academic fields which one might expect to find at a credible university. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying that Theories should not be a subcat of Concepts. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that. If you want to get an extremely involved account... In general, a theory is two or more concepts or two or more facts (i.e.empirical evidence). Scientific theories are constructed mostly of empirical evidence along with a few concepts (i.e. principles). Philosophical theories are constructed mostly of concepts, but may also include facts that inform the theory. The fundamental difference between philosophical and scientific theories is determined by the phenomenon they are intended to explain. Scientific theories are intended to explain scientific phenomena, and philosophical theories are intended to answer philosophical questions. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhatimsayin: re: "we need to have a place within each academic field category for the concepts which are within the subject matter of that field", that place is at the base of the respective field categories, e.g., Category:Physics or Category:Mathematics. Otherwise, there needs to be clear inclusion criteria for Category:Physical concepts and Category:Mathematical concepts. fgnievinski (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. That results in a cluttered base category. You need to address the fundamental organization of Wikipedia as set forward in the fundamental categories. Your proposal breaks that fundamental organization. Perhaps if you are unable to understand the inclusion criteria which has been put forward in very clear language, that you leave it to those who do understand it. That is what I do in areas I have no special exerience or education such as biology, and art. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concepts may be a fundamental category, but Concepts by field is not. And, I would say that, by insisting on this category, you are trying to impose philosophical concepts on fields where you admit to having no special experience. So the people trying to put articles in these categories will either be philosophers who don't understand the field or experts in the field who don't understand the philosophy. What would possibly go wrong? RockMagnetist(talk) 07:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, too, that categories are mainly a navigational tool for readers who may have neither kind of expertise. If the people writing the article have so much trouble using the categories correctly, how likely are they likely to be useful to those readers? RockMagnetist(talk) 14:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comment above that "categories are mainly a navigational tool for readers who may have neither kind of expertise. " But for me, that is exactly the reason that we should keep this category as it is. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the people who write the articles who have trouble with the correct cats, I think it's people who come along later who sometimes mess things up. That, however, is not a reason to start deletions and merges of categories, that is a reason to continue to realize that it is the nature of the beast called Wikipedia, where anybody in the world may edit it, and to continue to watch articles about subjects with which we are familiar and watch them vigilantly. Painius  17:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are categories that are misused, and then there are categories for which there is no proper use. Let's take a specific example, spacetime. I removed this from Concepts in physics, and you objected, saying 'If "spacetime" isn't properly a physics concept, then what sort of concept is it?' So here is my answer in categories: Four-dimensional geometry, Lorentzian manifolds and Mathematical modeling, all of which are mentioned in the article and could be easily defended by sources. Note also that Mathematical modeling is a subcat of Conceptual models which is a subcat of Concepts. So "mathematical model" is the answer to "what sort of concept is 'spacetime'"? I challenge the "keep" voters to find an article in Concepts in physics that cannot be placed in at least one better category. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the whole point of categories like that one is the editors of each article as a community can come to some understanding about which categories or subcategories best fit each article individually. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the "challenge" you seem to want to make it out to be, RM. Spacetime as a construct of mathematical physics is a "physics concept". Spacetime as a math model can also be sorted to that equally valid category. Neither is "better" nor "worse" than the other in terms of their validity. And since spacetime is so much more than just a "model", there are few who, like yourself, would deny its firm relationship with physics. Above you state you are a geophysicist; aren't there any concepts of geophysics? or does that particular field lack any concepts. Painius  23:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: I should have added that Spacetime is already a subcat of Theory of relativity, which is how it gets classified as physics. I was just discussing what new categories could be added in place of Concepts in physics. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: re: "the whole point of categories like that one is the editors of each article as a community", how does the community around Category:Physical concepts would want to interact with members in Category:Biological concepts? Each community is already well served by Category:Physics and Category:Biology. fgnievinski (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhatimsayin: re: "That results in a cluttered base category", that is exactly why I said subcats in Category:Concepts by field are a problem of WP:OCMISC. fgnievinski (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your question, but it is self-evident based on the comments here on this page that some members of the editing community wish to enable some interaction between Category:Physical concepts and Category:Biological concepts based on the fact that they are all concepts, and some do not. that is the point here of this discussion here; it is what we are here to discuss. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category loops[edit]
It's just a guess, but my guess is you've uncovered a "tip of the iceberg" due to changes over time. And that is precisely what is needed here – to go through and uncover what you might think are anomalous categorical relationships and to either boldly make the needed changes or to bring them to community discussion when you're not quite sure how to "fix it". However, there is nothing there to suggest that any category or categories should be deleted nor even merged. Over time, some contributors who are not savvy enough to make the more in-depth type edits will often make them anyway. Most of the time any of these that are bad edits are caught and reverted, hopefully with an explanation by the reverter that helps editors learn the rights and wrongs, the ins and outs of, in this case, category theory. It is another way we can learn from our mistakes. And the rest of the time, a relatively few bad edits may go undiscovered, sometimes for years. You deserve a "pat on the back" or a barnstar or whatever for your work to unravel the bad edits that still exist. Painius  23:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, these categories are just the tip of the iceberg; the top-level categories are a mess, and maybe it will take advanced math to sort it out. But I'm hoping that defining characteristics will be enough. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is very good to wonder! That does sound a bit patronizing, and yet I assure you that it's not meant that way. I wonder what "defining characteristics" there are for the idea of "spacetime", for example. Not many, I'm assured, because beyond the Cartesian descriptions, spacetime is pretty much thought of as "nothing". Note how the concept of "nothing" is defined. Look at that fascinating article, do please! Look at how it is "defined" either in terms of its opposite, "something", or by using the term "nothing" in the definition, awkward practices at best. Then be further fascinated by the outdated "Physics" section of the article. Here again, I could go on for days with this open-ended subject. I'm sure you'll also note the categories. Yes, those wonderful categories, such as the Existentialist concepts category (is that one on the list?). It's the 21st century and still pretty much nothing is known yet about "nothing". Again, it's probably best for me to put a halt to this post that could potentially turn into an Asimov trilogy. Painius  01:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gregbard's discussion of the framework is mainly focussed on theories, with concepts mainly discussed in terms of articles that have been mis-categorized as theories. As the only concrete example, Placebo is "not a "theory", but rather is a concept employed consistent with a theory." But while I can find support for categories such as Category:Therapy and Category:Deception being defining, I can find none for "Concept".
Gregbard was actually the second person to create Concepts. Someone created it back in 2005 (see the discussion) to house articles like security and harm that they couldn't find any other category for. Another editor objected that it is too broad to be useful. After other editors added Trade and Time travel in fiction, the first concurred and deleted it.
Some history for a fundamental category! RockMagnetist(talk) 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Funny that Category:Fundamental categories included Category:Matter but excluded Category:Energy (which I just added), so I've tagged that category description with citation needed: [1]. fgnievinski (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Defining[edit]

Looking back on the above discussion, I see a lot of difficulty in defining the issues. For a start, many of the arguments are specifically about the container category, Category:Concepts by field. I will defer discussion of this until the end. As for the member categories, the "deletes" call Concepts subjective and arbitrary; they point to numerous examples where people have been confused about its meaning and have included a lot of obviously inappropriate articles. To which the "keeps" reply that you either need to know what a concept is (best left to experts) or you need to consult the inclusion criteria in the base category.

The problem is, when you categorize an article, you don't hunt for inclusion criteria up the category tree; you look at the sources for the subject of the article and see how they commonly and consistently refer to the subject. It's a bottom-up, not top-down, approach. And every time that I apply it to an article in the Category:Concepts tree, I find that Concept is not a defining characteristic. Here are some examples that I have recategorized. Thanks to categories in this discussion, Category:Knowledge, Category:Creativity, and Concept (!) were placed in subcategories of themselves or their eponymous categories. In addition, some of the subcategories of Category:Concepts like Category:Impossible objects, Category:Fictional objects, and some of the articles like Liberature, Emotion and Technoculture, did not belong in the category.

So, in summary, I think that the root of the problem is the top category, Category:Concepts. It is probably not a defining characteristic for anything outside of philosophy and it shouldn't be a fundamental category. Just as the main article, Concept, is a philosophy article, so the category should remain within philosophy. If it weren't a fundamental category, these field-specific categories wouldn't have been created in the first place.

For the categories under discussion, the best resolution would be to get rid of Category:Concepts by field and then leave people in each field to clean up the subject-specific category. That is what I was doing until the "keeps" objected. But that's exactly what you need to do if the issue is defining characteristics and none of the rules of thumb in WP:OVERCAT apply. After cleanup, if there is anything left, the categories can stay. Otherwise, they should be deleted. This can be settled one category at a time. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the "keeps" you summarize, I still disagree with your take on all this. For one thing, those who should be doing the categorizing are or should be those who know something about category theory, and therefore, those who realize how myopic it is not to "hunt for inclusion criteria up the category tree". One thing we can do to help those who are less familiar with cat theory would be to add the inclusion criteria, along with any appropriate specifics, to the subcats, or at least an explanatory paragraph and link to the parent cat that describes the inclusion criteria. Your "best resolution" is your opinion only; in my opinion the best resolution is to close this discussion as "keep" with no merges and then get to work to clean up the cats. Otherwise we risk throwing the babes out with the bathwater. Painius  03:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the need to wait for a close before starting the cleanup? In an article deletion debate, editors are encouraged to improve the article, and that is just what a cleanup would do in this debate. The "deletes" have repeatedly asked for a demonstration of how the inclusion criteria would work on a category - or even a single example of an article that belongs in these categories - and so far received no response. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my wording was vague – it was not meant to imply the need to wait for closing to begin cleanup, it was meant to imply what I deem the procedural need to close this discussion now and get to work. Funny that you should jump on every little detail of my posts and avoid the primary subject. As for The "deletes" have repeatedly asked for a demonstration of how the inclusion criteria would work on a category - or even a single example of an article that belongs in these categories - and so far received no response, it is my contention that there has been much response to this effect that you have either ignored or misunderstood. Having said that, it is also necessary to acknowledge that you are, at least, setting forth an effort even though that effort amounts to picking out lesser subjects as you have done above and asking for clarification. So, kudes for that! Painius  19:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that you are the only "keep" who has discussed specific articles, so kudos to you for making an effort. But you seem to be making it hard on yourself, discussing articles like Relativity theory that were chosen by me from my area of expertise rather than yours. If the "keeps" understand what a concept is and the "deletes" don't, they should be the ones choosing an example. After all, they have a kind of home field advantage: examples of bad classification (which "deletes" have provided in abundance) can be dismissed as user error, but one clear example of good classification would provide strong support for the categories (as I did in this contribution to the CfD for Category:Terminology). And they could enjoy the luxury of choosing from a subject they know well. That they haven't, in the face of repeated invitations, suggests that they can't. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that one additional advantage that we "keeps" might have is that any category that sparks this much discussion, in this much depth and detail, is probably not a category which should simply be erased and deleted. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless all the depth and detail is provided by the "deletes". For example, all your comments, including this latest one, have been variations on It's useful and some people like it. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hm, ok, but by definition, the fallacy defined by WP:ITSUSEFUL does not apply to categories. it can only be applied to articles, since only articles can have a usefulness which does not directly relate to Wikipedia. Categories are either useful to Wikipedia, or else they simply have no usefulness whatsoever.
similarly, the fallacy of WP:ILIKEIT is only applicable to articles which are being kept here due to the personal preferences of some editors, such as if it pertains to their favorite rock band. so that too would not apply to categories, IMHO. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category split[edit]
@Paine Ellsworth: Why Will (philosophy) is a member of Category:Metaphysics and not of Category:Concepts in metaphysics? In other words, what's the demarcation line between a concepts-in-field subcategory and the base of its parent category? fgnievinski (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the difference is in the answer to the question, "Is 'will' just an idea/abstraction, or is 'will' more concretely a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed ... the general capacity to have ... desires and act decisively based on them, as described in the lead of the article on the 'will'?" So the line may be drawn between those articles that are about more concrete subjects and those that are about less concrete, more abstract subjects – and perhaps some subjects about which little is known, such as spacetime, general relativity, dark energy, opposite sexes :>), etc. Painius  20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about spliting Category:Concepts by field into Category:Conceptualizations by field and Category:Basic topics by field. The latter is the more common meaning of "concepts" outside of philosophy. For example, all of Category:Concepts in physics necessarily have a physical manifestation (in terms of matter or energy), so few or none are primarily about ideas or abstractions. See textbooks such as Basic Concepts in Physics, Fundamental Concepts of Physics. fgnievinski (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to you just above. It is my contention that such a split may result in much lost (and perhaps irretrievable) meaning–definitions of "concepts". Not to mention it would make an already misunderstood and imprecise area of categorization even less concise, more stretched, scattered and, consequently, even more difficult to understand. Painius  20:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too don't like this idea, for different reasons. "Basic topics in X" would correspond to the top categories in "X", while "Conceptualizations by field" has the same problems as "Concepts by field". RockMagnetist(talk) 21:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you recognize it's two different problems under one name; I guess I was proposing a divide-and-conquer strategy. fgnievinski (talk) 21:57, 30 September 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:Middle schools 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: delete. (Category has remained empty.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. The relatively low number of Middle Schools in the United States and the fact that this category is empty suggests Wikipedia editors don't care enough to use it. As there are no sub-categories such as Category:Middle schools in STATE by county, deleting this would not break any category structures. See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 27 and Category:Middle schools in the United States by state. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:00, 3 September 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:Coats of arms of London Boroughs

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. MER-C 14:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is an image category so should be named as such. The proposed format matches the parent category (for articles): Category:Coats of arms of London borough councils. These are fair use images so cannot be moved to commons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 3 September 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.
More