- 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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting Category:Asteroids named as an award
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC, WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME
- A student named Hannah Olivia Cevasco won a national science competition and, in addition to a plaque and a scholarship, part of her prize was having an asteroid named after her (source). This category only contains that one article (31641 Cevasco) but the intent is to group the other asteroids named as part of a prize. I don't see how a middle school science project on the healing power of honey or the like is defining for an actual object in space though. I already added the article to the existing list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The notified Fotaun as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Astronomy. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but redirect to (and create) Category:Minor planets named as an award, which would then fit into the Category:Minor planets by source of name hierarchy. Currently 2 members, with a few more (probably at least a few dozen) to be placed in this category. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but move to Category:Minor planets named as an award, as described by Tom.Reding above. The category will be populated with more than 100 items soon. Thx for the effort. Rfassbind – talk 15:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't question that this category could be well populated. WP:SMALLCAT is not an issue here. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, I didn't know Category:Minor planets by source of name existed and I have broader concerns here. Category:Minor planets named for members of The Beatles looks especially egregious. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Beatles minor planet category is nominated for deletion here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – the name of an asteroid is a trivial characteristic, not a defining one. Oculi (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trivial and non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unhelpful when off-topic editors vote on this issue without being aware in what context this category is actually embedded in. For a full categorization of all named minor planets this
trivial category is, in its renamed form, absolutely needed. If you argue that the
name of an asteroid shouldn't be used in any categorization, then I need to point out that, a) it's about minor planets (MPs), not just asteroids, and b) there are dozens of these name-based MP-object categories on wikipedia for many years. It is a perfectly fine and absolutely useful criteria for those actually working within WPSS. I ping
@Jorvis:,
@Exoplanetaryscience:,
@Praemonitus:,
@Kheider:,
@Huntster:, asking for support. Tom and I need it to
thoroughly implement a complete and consistent category structure on minor planet objects in general, and on the named ones in particular.
Rfassbind – talk 12:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
[reply]
- Keep but rename as above. While nominator would normally be correct that such a category would usually fail WP:OCASSOC and WP:NONDEFINING, in this situation I would argue that the minor planet's name influence is a defining characteristic of its name, and so would not fail in this situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing/Note to Closer The non-netural notice above tags specific editors with the explicit intention of WP:Votestacking. Please consider this when closing this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The usual principle that we don't categorize things by characteristics of their name(s) should (for consistency etc) apply - we don't have, for example, categories for chemical elements named after people, people named after relatives, towns named after rivers, roads named after places, companies whose name is an abbreviation etc. The categorization system is for categorizing articles in this encyclopedia (by their topic); not for creating a database (containing mainly redirects to list entries) - Cf Wikidata (and probably other websites). Where there is an article about a planet etc it can mention how the planet etc was named, but that doesn't need a category (see essay WP:DNWAUC). Regarding the proposal to rename this and place it under Category:Minor planets by source of name: that would be likely to lead to articles being categorized both for being named as a contest prize and for being named after a person. Huntster's comment - "the minor planet's name influence is a defining characteristic of its name" (my emphasis) rather makes the point that this is categorizing the/a name, not the astronomical body itself. See also previous CFDs (e.g. this and this).DexDor (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AST is, to my knowledge, in a somewhat unique position of dealing with mass bot-created stubs (now mostly #Rs). Sub-categorizing (though not ad nauseum, I agree) helps manage them, and allows us to more-easily confirm completeness/double check/etc. based on internal and external lists of minor planets. Usually, the usual principles don't apply here (within reason, of course). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that might be a valid reason, I don't think that creating a subcategory with 2 articles and 1 redirect helps in tackling this problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the first few votes, you'll find that the category will be more populated in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway I'm not convinced of arguments to keep the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- This shared name issue has come up before with city names, organization names and biography categorization. This CFD discussion links to those earlier nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a great category for collected asteroids named as awards, which is encyclopedic. Fotaun (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not defining to the asteroids. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we do not categoize things by what their name is. For example, if I went out tomorrow and convinced enough people to change the name of Mars to Szeczszchalbitosky, it should remain in all the cateogies it is at present, if there is any category that the planet mars fits in but the planet Szeczszchalbitosky would not fit in, it is aflawed category that should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: relisting in an attempt to dilute the effects of votestacking.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete The particular way an object was assigned its name is not a defining property of the object. Nothing about the object itself changes when the name is changed. We do not have categories like this for cities or anything else. If this fits with an overall schema of the categorization of asteroids, than our categorization schema for such is flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't notice I had already voted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Seems to me to be a pretty clear example of categorizing by shared naming characteristic, which is generally avoided in category names per the cited guidelines. I'd have no objection against some sort of list if users really think that this information is "encyclopedic". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2016 (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.