Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 28 May 30 >

May 29[edit]

Category:People from Fletcher, Vermont[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 3 entries. ...William 23:44, 29 May 2014 (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 Andover, Vermont[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 3 entries. ...William 23:39, 29 May 2014 (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:Traditionalism[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. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Traditionalism" is an ambiguous term. This category states that its main article is Traditionalist School, so I propose renaming to that. Rather than using C2D, I thought I would bring it here in case users think that Category:Perennial philosophy would be a better name, per Perennial philosophy. Honestly, I don't really understand the difference between the two concepts. (Given the existence of Traditionalist School (architecture), I suppose Category:Traditionalist School (religion) or Category:Traditionalist School (philosophy) could also be possibilities.) See previous "no consensus" discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (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:Films based on Dark Horse comics[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2014 (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:Primitive fishes[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: delete Category:Primitive fish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The issues with such a category are several (and related):

UPDATE: The category has been renamed Category:Primitive fish

  • In general, the term "primitive", in biology, cannot be applied to species, classes or other modern taxa, but only to characters. In general there is no such thing as a primitive living species; all existent species are evolved the same. Warnings against this terminology are explicit in the biological literature:

Here : Are there primitive and advanced species, just as there are primitive and advanced characters? No. Not all characters evolve at the same rate and at the same degree in different lineages [...] so it is inappropriate to speak of plesiomorphic (or "primitive") and apomorphic (or "advanced") species. ; another book source: "we cannot call species primitive or advanced" ; another: "clades themselves cannot be ancestral/primitive ("lower") or derived/advanced ("higher") as each clade will have a combination of ancestral and derived character states.

  • Given that there cannot be primitive species, the whole concept of "primitive fish" clumps together arbitrarily species and taxa which have basically no real relationship, biological or conceptual, with each other, apart from being in practice "not teleost fishes". Which is hardly a meaningful categorization - it is like categorizing all tetrapods which are not mammals as "primitive tetrapods".
  • The term "primitive" has also undesirable overtones which imply, to the naive reader, that these species are somehow less developed/evolved than others.
  • While the term "primitive fish" is indeed used in some scientific literature, out of sloppiness or brevity (to indicate fishes which retain some primitive characters), it is not anymore consensual given the problems intrinsic to it, and in fact its usage plummets after 1960s [1]. That a wording is used does not mean that it is correct, and in fact scientific literature -linked above- points that it is incorrect.

As such, apart from being scientifically inaccurate and misleading to readers, this category cannot be about a defining characteristic of the included articles, because the term cannot apply to the categorized topics (fish), and as such it violates WP:CAT.

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_25#Template:Primitive_fishes for a related discussion on a related template. cyclopiaspeak! 17:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – The term "primitive fishes" is an unfortunate term which was used in various loose ways for a while in the past. The concept has no formal place in biology, and can be unhelpful and misleading to naive readers. A more up to date version of the Google Ngram cited above shows that the use of the term has steadily deprecated over the last 40 years. Wikipedia has no article on "primitive fishes", and if an article were to be written, it would need to largely take the form of a history of the use of the term with warnings indicating how unhelpful the term can be. There may be a case for a cautionary article, but there is no case for a category. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am guessing this may get the same discussion as the template but in any case. I dont think it is useful to WP, I agree that it cannot be applied in any sensible or useful way and that of course the term cannot be applied to taxa. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • listify and delete the nom makes a good argument for deletion - effectively this is an arbitrary or subjective categorization. However since the term was frequently used in the literature even if now falling out of favor we should listify - as List of fish species called primitive - with a cautionary warning like the above based on reliable sources but that outlines or lists fish that were considered to fall in this category in the past.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the claim that the term "primitive fishes" is scientifically inaccurate or misleading is in itself inaccurate and misleading considering the term is still being used and is available in scientific literature, books, and throughout Wikipedia. You can see a list of its use in recent research documents and books at the following link, [2]. The same editor who began this Cfd has also requested a Tfd at [3], where many of the arguments for KEEP have already been addressed. Multiple reliable sources have been provided to justify the term "primitive fishes", and the fact that this same biologist is pushing for its removal introduces a WP:POV issue as evidenced in the reasons for deletion, such as it being an "unfortunate term", and that it is scientifically inaccurate or misleading. The term is a simple descriptor, ubiquitous, and easily recognized by most Wiki readers. It meets the required criteria per WP policy, and serves a benefit by categorizing extant fishes with primitive morphological characters that occurred in the earliest fossil record, and separates them from those defined by dominant modern groups. The category is not random, arbitrary or unrelated, and benefits Wiki readers who want to read articles about fishes with primitive characters. AtsmeWills☯ talk 13:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the book you cite states "This is, therefore, a rather diverse collection of taxa whose only universal feature is being of ancient lineage.". Is there an agreed scientific consensus definition of what a primitive fish is? How many primitive characteristics must it have?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • considering the term is still being used and is available in scientific literature, books, and throughout Wikipedia. - As I said above, that a term is used does not mean it is correct -we, as editors, must use our judgement to choose among sources. The literature is clear on the term being absolutely incorrect when applied to species; if some sources do, it is their fault, that we do not need to propagate. Even very reliable sources can be wrong sometimes, and we have proof that they are. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:User:Cyclopia what you just proposed is against policy Wikipedia:OR, and clearly places it in the realm of WP:POV from which I quote the following by Jimbo Wales: If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. I have provided multiple 2nd and 3rd party reliable sources. Your position is clearly lacking in reliable 2nd and 3rd party sources to a significant degree. AtsmeWills☯ talk 19:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You don't understand what WP:OR is about (there are book sources shown above, and it is about inserting content in articles, not editorial disputes), (2) there is no POV whatsoever here, it is an established fact that the term "primitive" makes no sense when applied to species or taxa, (3)such a viewpoint is not that of a small minority, but it is the consensus view in the phylogenetics scientifical community, which is the relevant discipline here.--cyclopiaspeak! 19:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You are trying to write a scientific report, and I'm trying to provide navigational aids that can be read and understood by the general public which creates increased exposure and accessibility to the various WP articles. You are thinking like a scientist, not an editor;
  2. The term "primitive fishes" is not only ubiquitous, it is still being used in articles, books, in mainstream media, and in the scientific community for all the reasons I've already stated numerous times, and backed up with reliable 2nd and 3rd party sources;
  3. See Wikipedia Categorization wherein it states 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. Categories are not the only means of enabling users to browse sets of related pages. Other tools which may be used instead of or alongside categories in particular instances include lists and navigation boxes. For a comparison of these techniques, see Categories, lists and navigation templates. It's pretty clear. A reader sees a tv show about river monsters on PBS, or Discovery, and the host of the show is talking about primitive fishes, so that reader googles primitive fishes, and guess what comes up? Do you not see it? The fact that you have a different POV from what mainstream media and reliable 2nd & 3rd party sources have about primitive fishes or fishes with primitive characters is irrelevant to categories, and templates. You simply include the information in the article. Both the template and the category are beneficial to readers, and they neither mislead, nor misinform. They are simply navigational aids so readers can easily find the articles. I seriously doubt an 8th grader will be Googling ray-finned fishes. They are more likely to be looking for primitive fishes, and there's nothing you can do to change that simple fact. I'd much rather Wiki readers make it to the actual articles where they can learn about the biology and/or science of these remarkable living fossils rather than risk the articles being overlooked because they simply couldn't find them. AtsmeWills☯ talk 19:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You are trying to write a scientific report - No. I am just trying to be correct. If I write that the Moon is made of cheese, instead than olivine, I am saying a falsehood, even if for sure "cheese" is more palatable to readers. You are doing the biological equivalent of that.
  2. I'm trying to provide navigational aids that can be read and understood by the general public - I understand that you are trying, but in doing so you are failing, by using words in the wrong way. And please, explain: what does the "general public" understand with your category? That such fishes are "primitive"? Then you are making the general public understand a falsehood, since no living fish is "primitive".
  3. it is still being used in articles, books, in mainstream media [...] - True that. Which does not make it any more correct. It is still incorrect. Articles, books, mainstream media readily do wrong things. Luckly for us, we know that they are wrong, thanks to the scientific literature on the matter, so we can know what to trust and what not.
  4. so that reader googles primitive fishes, and guess what comes up? Do you not see it? - It comes out Evolution of fish, which is where primitive fish redirects currently, and correctly. Everything working as expected, and correct information is provided.
  5. there's nothing you can do to change that simple fact. - Of course. I just want readers that google, understandably, a poor choice of words, to find correct, scientific information, not to feed them pseudoscience, which is what apparently you want to do.--cyclopiaspeak! 20:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion for editors to disregard reliable published sources because you don't agree with them is not encouraged in any of the WP guidelines or policies I've read. Suggestion - before further comments are made, will editors please review the cladogram at the following link.[4] Perhaps it will give potential commenters a better understanding of how Polypteriformes (bichirs and reed fishes), Chondrostei (sturgeons and paddlefishes), Lepisosteiformes (gars), Amiiformes (bowfin), and Teleostei (teleosts-most living fishes) are related, and which ones are considered primitive fishes/living fossils/relict species.
Cyclopia, some of the changes you made to the sturgeon article raised quite a few questions. For example, you added "however they are highly evolved and do not resemble ancestral chondrosteans". The source actually states something quite different as follows: [5] Although considered primitive actinopterygians, the extant acpenseriform sturgeons and paddlefishes are highly derived, relict species that bear little resemblance to ancestral chondrosteans. "Little resemblance" is not the same as "do not resemble" the latter of which is the misinformation you provided in the article. Didn't you say you had a doctorate? Further, with regards to their cartilaginous skeleton you added, "However this feature is derived, and not primitive. When you added that sentence, it was contradictory to several other statements in the article. To begin, evolutionary information should have been included under the Evolution section, not in the lead.
Had you more closely read the source you cited, you would have also seen that "sturgeons and paddlefish are highly derived relict species", and that the "two families probably diverged from each other during the Jurassic, but they still share a number of characteristics such as a cartilaginous skeleton....". Ok, so let's examine the term "relict species" beginning with the following excerpt from the Wiki article of the same name....A notable example is the thylacine of Tasmania, a relict marsupial carnivore that survived into modern times on an island whereas the rest of its species on mainland Australia had long ago gone extinct. When a relict is representative of taxa found in the fossil record, and yet is still living, such an organism is sometimes referred to as a living fossil. However, a relict need not be currently living.
My question to you now in one last attempt to compromise is for us to consider a possible name change for the template and category to Part of a series on..."Relict Fishes", or "Relict Fish Species". AtsmeWills☯ talk 23:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I agree that "do not resemble" was not entirely correct, thanks for pointing this. Feel free to fix that if you already didn't. Everything else:
  1. Your suggestion for editors to disregard reliable published sources because you don't agree with them is not encouraged in any of the WP guidelines or policies I've read. - That is not my suggestion. My "suggestion" is to follow reliable sources that advise that a wording used in other sources is actually incorrect, and thus a wise editorial decision is to avoid such wording.
  2. The edits on the sturgeon article you discuss are not relevant here and should be discussed in Talk:Sturgeon. Briefly, however, the point is that the skeleton of sturgeons being cartilaginous is not an ancestral character, but a derived one. Ancestors of sturgeons had bony skeletons. Sturgeons evolved later a de-calcified skeleton. As such, it cannot be considered a primitive character. You will have noticed this fact is supported by plenty of sources. I also later moved the info in the evolution section. Please go on Talk:Sturgeon if you need to discuss it further.
  3. I am unsure if "relict" is a good substitute. First of all one has to distinguish between a taxonomic relict and a geographical relict, two quite different concepts -I guess we refer to the former, but how to make it clear? Second, the concept is inherently vague -it is usually defined as few or sole survivors of a once diverse and widespread taxonomic groups; but how many are "few"? And at what taxonomic level do we stop? (e.g. would a relict teleost subfamily qualify?) While perhaps less problematic than "primitive", it still strikes me as very problematic and giving more confusion than understanding to the reader.--cyclopiaspeak! 00:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This matter has already been fully dealt with in the parallel discussion here. The reasons that make "Primitive fish" unsuitable for a template are the same as the reasons that make it unsuitable for a category. You make it repeatedly clear Atsme that you do not pay the slightest attention to what other editors say to you, and I see no evidence that you even read what other editors write. For example, you say above that I'd much rather Wiki readers make it to the actual articles where they can learn about the biology and/or science of these remarkable living fossils rather than risk the articles being overlooked because they simply couldn't find them. You have been repeatedly told that it would be okay to write an article on "Primitive fishes", if that is what you want. How can you possible still pretend to have not heard that?
If the article is to be written, it would need to be written carefully to avoid confusion. It would be a largely cautionary article explaining why the term is ill-defined, and why its use is problematic. What is not okay is creating a template and a category for "Primitive fishes", since the term is so relative and imprecise. It leads to categorisations which are misleading or mean next to nothing. You have been labelling articles, Atsme, in a manner that is seriously confused. For example you have labelled Teleostei as "primitive". With that edit alone you have labelled three-quarters of all fish species as "primitive". --Epipelagic (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, thanks for noticing that edit. Basically Atmse has labeled all fishes as primitive, then. I see definite WP:COMPETENCE issues here.--cyclopiaspeak! 22:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Epipelagic - I don't have time for groundless claims, especially from those who haven't even seen the inside of fisheries field station, or fish hatchery. See my comment directly above your's. It begins with "Your suggestion....". FYI - the template is not locked, is relatively new, and can be edited. Instead of wasting time trying to get it deleted, why don't you improve it after you understand its purpose. You still don't get it. AtsmeWills☯ talk 23:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, competency issues, and now it seems honesty issues as well. You made the comment directly above mine nearly two hours after I made my comment Atsme... --Epipelagic (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic, what difference does it make if I made my comment 8 hrs "after" your's, and what does it have to do with honesty? Such comments are not productive, and they certainly don't sound very mature. The competency issues I'm having do not originate with me, rather they stem from editors who have issues with WP guidelines - WP:OR, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:POV, and What Wikipedia is not, or who choose to simply ignore them. I highly recommend that you read those guidelines, and perhaps ask for help if you don't fully understand them. AtsmeWills☯ talk 20:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok some of this does go down the path of my area of expertise and I do need to make a couple of points on the claims. As I said I study and have described actual living fossils. A living fossil is a species that is first described as a fossil then later found alive. In other words, the holotype of the species is made of rock, ie is a fossil. Hence the Thylacine is not one. By the way the mainland population of Thylacine was wiped out by the Dingo, the most recent specimen is a 4000 year old mummified remains from a cave in Western Australia. Yes the Tasmanian population was a relic until it went extinct in 1928. 4000 years is not exactly that long ago. I am sure many species of fish would be considered relics, but this does not make them primitive. Nor does it make them living fossils. The comparison of "bear little resemblance" and "do not resemble" is probably reasonable, I have not read the paper, but I have used the phrase "little resemblance" and in scientific writing it basically means they are not the same but I cannot be more than 95% confident of it, so I put in a caveat. However it basically means they are not alike, at all.
It would seem this, and also the template discussion, is going in circles. What I dont get is why Atsme is so adament about this. I mean your arguing to the point of sheer bloodymindedness. Let it go. I mean we have all as editors had some of the stuff we have added removed I am sure. Its not worth it. I still do not see any value in this category or template. There have been 3 delete votes here, and one keep same on the template. So why is this still going in circles? Faendalimas talk 00:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Faendalimas, but with all due respect, your response brought a chuckle. You admit in your first paragraph that the only thing you are sure about is that you are not absolutely sure about any of it, yet you are still arguing for deletion. FYI, consensus is not about a "vote". Considering the main premise of this entire discussion is based on whether or not the template and category follow Wikipedia guidelines, and serve to benefit Wiki readers, your argument has failed because it is not based on reliable sources, Wiki guidelines, or valid reasons for deletion. It is clearly based on WP:OR which Wikipedia guidelines advise against.
You think I am the one arguing to the "point of sheer bloodymindedness", and you don't understand why I am "so adamant about this."? Well, the reason I am so adamant is rather simple. Unlike you, I am bloody sure about the points I've made for keeping the template and category, and I am also sure that the information I've provided as an editor is accurate because I'm following WP guidelines, and using 2nd and 3rd level reliable sources, not WP:OR, as has been suggested by your side of the debate.
It actually isn't me who doesn't get it. So far, I am the only one who has been respecting WP guidelines with regards to reliable sourcing, and WP:OR, and attempting to collaborate and compromise. Cyclopia recently suggested that we ignore WP sourcing guidelines, and choose original research instead, a suggestion which I strongly oppose. I will admit that he and I together have made significant improvements to the sturgeon article, although it would be of far greater benefit to utilize "engaging prose" rather than all the scientific terminology that serves little to no benefit to the average Wiki reader. The taxobox provides ample scientific information. The voluminous scientific details about the primitive character of fishes, their evolution, and molecular phylogeny would be better served as a spin-off article. Suggestion - Cyclopia could write an article on "Basal actinopterygians", and include it in the template. An article published by Yale University, Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, is a great place to start: "Basal actinopterygians, referred to as "ancient fish" including bichirs, sturgeons and paddlefish, gars and bowfin, are relatively species poor. Together they comprise less than 1% of extant actinopterygians." Of course, even Yale includes the reference to "ancient fish" because they know full well the term has relative importance. Perhaps "Ancient Fishes" could be the new title for the template?
Since you mentioned the template discussion as well, I will repeat what one editor so wisely stated early on in the discussion on that page: Comment: Just a fair reminder to all of you biologists. Your expertise is prized and valuable and thank you so much for taking part in wikipedia, however your expertise doesn't amount to a trump card. I have not scanned thru every argument of why the primitive fish template should be removed but I notice one is backed by information published in a blog. Why should that self published source be taken into consideraton? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The reason this discussion is still going in circles is because we have a few editors here who are not respecting Wikipedia norms, which includes following Wikipedia guidelines about WP:OR, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:POV, and What Wikipedia is not. Keep the following in mind: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. Wikipedia:Consensus AtsmeWills☯ talk 20:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a priceless piece of empty puffery and wikilawyering Atsme. But it has nothing to do with whether "Primitive fishes" should be category. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also a priceless piece of spectacular bad faith and slander. To be able to spit nonsense like Cyclopia recently suggested that we ignore WP sourcing guidelines, and choose original research instead in the face of three references right in the deletion rationale really takes some guts. --cyclopiaspeak! 21:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, what original research have I brought to this on fish. Considering I have not done any research on fish I would like to know. I do not recommend the use of original research and have not. I am wondering if you have not fallen into the trap of NPOV, you seem very adamant about this and have also fallen into the trap of using volumous quotes to defend your case. Quotes which are not necessarily in context or complete. The one you levelled at me for example, I had previously warned of the same thing in the template argument, and also agreed with Serialjoepsycho's comment. Something you chose to ignore. Your also misquoting and misunderstanding the arguments for delete, for example I did not say or indicate I was unsure of anything here. Your certainly not arguing within the spirit of the WP guidlines, and are not using common sense interpretations of them. Just because you are "bloody sure" does not make you right. Faendalimas talk 22:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a non-biologist, but experienced wp categorizer, I can see several problems with this category. For example, the category has no parent categories (which suggests that its creator, Atsme, has a very poor understanding of wp categorization). The articles placed in the category include a fish that lived (only) during the Devonian and others with fossils from the late Cretaceous onwards. That there is no "Primitive fish" wp article is a further indication that this isn't an important/clear characteristic. Note: Even if a term is used in RSs and a clear definition can be found for it does not mean that it's an appropriate addition to the wp categorization scheme. DexDor (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you would please, read the information at Category:Fish wherein it states - "This category contains subcategories corresponding to the highest-level taxa of fish as well as articles and subcategories relating to non-taxonomic fish groupings or subjects. Oh, and thanks for bringing the parenting issue to my attention. It is now fixed. The category and template are navigational aids, which makes no attempt at specific taxonomic grouping other than to link articles about fishes that have been, and still are being considered "primitive fishes" according to scientific journals, mainstream media, and multiple 2nd and 3rd level reliable sources. For the umpteenth time, the category and navbox are not taxoboxes - they are navigational aids. All of the arguments for deletion are irrelevant to navigational aids, so please put the taxonomic arguments and scientific hypotheses to rest. Both the category and template follow WP guidelines. Editors with far more experience writing Wiki articles than probably all of us combined have already explained the concept of the navbox on the template page's Rfd. It doesn't matter if 100 editors present a taxonomy argument for deletion - it is irrelevant to both the template (navbox), and the subcategory. Both simply link articles in a series about fishes that are/have been referred to as primitive fishes and/or have primitive characteristics that have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. Wikipedia is a resource that documents real world subjects as they were documented and popularized in the real world, and the category and template do that quite well, thank you. AtsmeWills☯ talk 06:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Navigational aids still must not spit false or misleading information. This is not documenting a real world subject, it is documenting something false. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, originated problems when she created an inappropriate template for "primitive fishes". When it became clear that a discussion about her template was headed for deletion, she created Category:Primitive fishes, the subject of this current thread. Now it has become clear that this category is also headed for deletion, she has created a new category called Category:Primitive fish, and emptied out the former category. This resulted in an admin deleting the former category. Atsme was presumably attempting to abort the current discussion and make it necessary to start yet another discussion. In these threads, Atsme seems wedded to grandstanding and is unresponsive to rational process. The behaviour is becoming disruptive. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic, to begin, I have always maintained that the template and category remain open for correction. It was pointed out to me in this discussion that I had forgotten to include parentage in the category. I made a good faith edit, and corrected the error. Others have been editing the template to improve it. That is not disruptive behavior, that is good faith editing to correct errors and omissions, which by the way is what we are supposed to be doing as editors instead of arguing over silly nonsense that isn't even relevant to the requests for deletion. Furthermore, civil discussion on a Cfd is not considered disruptive behavior, however, making false allegations, insulting another editor, and launching personal attacks certainly is. I refer you to some of your own comments followed by my response with regards to how they were received:
  • You make it repeatedly clear Atsme that you do not pay the slightest attention to what other editors say to you....22:05, 31 May 2014 Condescending and insulting.
  • You have been repeatedly told that it would be okay to write an article on "Primitive fishes....22:05, 31 May 2014 "Told"? Who has such authority? I don't work for you.
  • Yes, competency issues, and now it seems honesty issues as well. You made the comment directly above mine nearly two hours after I made my comment....00:13, 1 June 2014 An attack on my competency as an editor, and a personal attack on my integrity.
  • That's a priceless piece of empty puffery.....20:51, 1 June 2014 Unprofessional and insulting.
  • Atsme was presumably attempting to abort the current discussion and make it necessary to start yet another discussion. In these threads, Atsme seems wedded to grandstanding and is unresponsive to rational process. 09:36, 2 June 2014 Presumably? That is an unfounded allegation, and an insult. Your allegations of "grandstanding" are ludicrous at best, and your comment that I am "unresponsive to rational process" is a personal attack.
Excuse me, but none of the comments you've made are true, and in fact are derogatory toward me. That is not what I consider productive discussion, and when it is not productive, it tends to be disruptive.
I also wanted to ask those editors who believe the category and/or the template should be deleted to please read the following, and pay close attention to the use of the terms "ancient fish", "collectively", and "alternative phylogenetic hypotheses": The basal actinopterygians comprise four major lineages (polypteriforms, acipenseriforms, lepisosteids, and Amia) and have been collectively called "ancient fish." We investigated the phylogeny of this group of fishes in relation to teleosts using mitochondrial genomic (mitogenomic) data, and compared this to the various alternative phylogenetic hypotheses that have been proposed previously. In addition to the previously determined complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from 14 teleosts and two outgroups, we used newly determined mitogenomic sequences of 12 purposefully chosen species representing all the ancient fish lineages plus related teleosts. Mol Phylogenet Evol., authors Inoue JG, Miya M, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M. [6] The abstract ends with the following statement: Although the tree topology differed from any of the previously proposed hypotheses based on morphology, it exhibited congruence with a recently proposed novel hypothesis based on nuclear markers.
An hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. I consider it Fringe_science at this point. It is neither wise, nor acceptable under Wiki guidelines to start changing existing articles, or to propose the deletion of categories and templates based on an hypothesis, especially considering there are no 2nd and 3rd level reliable sources, and only WP:OR. AtsmeWills☯ talk 17:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, if several people are questioning your competence and integrity, perhaps a good idea is to check if your competence and integrity are, indeed, questionable. Whining about it and dodging the issue is not going to help you. As to what the quote of Inoue et al. would be meant to show, I have no idea. Nobody here is providing any new hypothesis. The one promoting pseudoscience is you, clinging to a concept ("primitive" taxa) which has been shown -by sources above- to be scientifically nonsensical. Continuing to throw around your nonsensical WP:OR accusation in the face of three sources right in the nomination rationale is only going to make you look even less competent and less honest. You know what they say: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing is to stop digging.--cyclopiaspeak! 17:53, 2 June 2014 (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:Heterogeneous System Architecture[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too small a category. Content was already moved to the other cat by Comp.arch. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose it's got articles in it. it has a purpose, but it's been a little slow putting articles into it. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose make "HSA" a subcategory to "Heterogeneous computing". User:ScotXWt@lk 00:35, 2 June 2014 (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:Retired Pacific typhoons[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is categorizing articles about storms by a characteristic of the storm's name. That a storm caused a name to be retired gives some indication that the storm caused death/damage, but IMO that's not sufficient to keep this categorization. If kept then should be renamed to "...with retired names" (per Commons[7]). There are list articles (which may need to be upmerged). DexDor (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that there are list articles, this should be a fairly obvious keep. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having a list article does not mean that a category is also appropriate (e.g. recipients of awards are usually listed, but not categorized). DexDor (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I strongly feel that the Lists of Retired X Y names are notable, since they are generally the names of systems that are destructive/deadly that are retired by the committees of the World Meterological Organization. In particular the category system serves a decent purpose in my opinon of allowing people to see what names have been retired and have articles in each basin. I would also oppose the renaming unless it was too something along the lines of Retired Pacific hurricane names.Jason Rees (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no intention here to delete the list articles. DexDor (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I didn't check the other basins but in general Atlantic hurricanes which have articles of their own have their names retired. When all those articles are removed, there's generally only one or two list articles left in each subcategory. I suggest putting those in Category:Lists of retired tropical cyclone names and deleting these categories as redundant. Mangoe (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know what the above even means, but of course, the storms that are retired would be in the category for that basin. As none of these categories are all that small, I don't see what's wrong with keeping them. They aren't redundant by any means. They separate the retired storms by basin, just as we do with separating storms by basin for impacts. There are over 1,000 tropical cyclone articles, so having a good category structure is vital for organization. Of course we are categorizing storms by their name. Storms are only retired when they cause a significant amount of impact, and they're recognized by the World Meteorology Organization as being notable. However, that's only a small subset of the number of articles on Wikipedia. There are many that are notable for other reasons, such as longevity, affecting an unusual location, or intensity, and not all are retired. Some basins don't even have retired names. But the retired names are distinct on their own, and they are retired based on the basin they are named in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Of course we are categorizing storms by their name" - wp categorization should be by characteristics of the article's topic (e.g. that it's about a storm, in Ocean X in year Y), not by characteristics of the article name (e.g. we don't put the Apple article in a "things beginning with letter A" category). DexDor (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being retired is a characteristic of the article's topic. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - being retired is a characteristic of a name (that has been used to refer to one or more storms). An article (e.g. Hurricane Edna) is about a particular weather event. DexDor (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Storms are (usually) retired because there particular storm was bad, so therefore, being retired is a characteristic of the article's topic, since the storm was bad enough to justify retirement. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A storm name may be retired; the storm itself was a weather event that happened. It makes no more sense to say a storm is retired than to say a storm is female because (if it has a female name). If we are to have category/ies for "storms that (caused so much damage they) caused a name to be retired" then the category name should be match that. Tropical Storm Fabian is a name that's been retired (because of a 2003 storm) - do you think the 1991 storm of the same name belongs in the retirees category? DexDor (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable characteristic of a storm, doesn't meet any of the deletion criteria, no objection to move. Secret account 17:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hurricanehink --12george1 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete ultimately this is a categorization based on these being especially dramatic storms - what magnitude they must have is not clear but the result of that is a retiring of the name. The list is a better way to capture this info, and the fact that the name of the storm was retired after the storm hit is not defining of the storm itself.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also add a comment, in addition to my earlier one? Doesn't it matter that the people who regularly use these categories are the same people who voted keep? Doesn't that count for anything? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite common at CFD to find the category creator(s) !voting keep and those who maintain the categorization tree !voting delete (some examples). DexDor (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2014 (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:Ecclesiastical titles[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If you look at the subcategories of every of these two categories, it becomes evident that they are largely overlapping.Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Ecclesiastical titles is a valid subcategory of Category:Christian religious occupations, that separates ecclesiastic office from those of laypeople. Why the push to delete all of these religious categories? And please notify WikiProject Christianity about these proposals. They would provide valuable input. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The point is that an ecclesiastical title implies a religious occupation and vice versa. I understand what you're saying about lay people but these people don't have a religious occupation anyway.
    • (BTW it's not I want to delete categories per se, since I've also created a new one recently. It's just that I sometimes get confused about how it's currently been classified.)
    • Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for the moment)—there is a considerable amount of nesting here and I think that needs sorting out first so that we can see what the real structure is (and should be). Could you withdraw this nomination so that we can tidy it up and then have a proper look at it? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm okay to withdraw for the moment. If you want to involve me in any further discussions, I'd be glad to, just use my talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (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: Religious figures[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. I considered this discussion in conjunction with the discussion below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear what the difference is between the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Category:Religious figures is not only a child category of Category:People associated with religion, but it's also a grand-child category of it. In the latter case Category:Religious workers serves as a parent in between. So it's pretty complicated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion—a quick review of this area of the category tree indeed reveals a tangle. I'm not sure that pulling the seven subcategories up into the "container category" is the best way to start to disentangle it. I suggest that the better thing to do is to remove the child cat from Category:Religious workers. I can't see that the contents of "figures" are particularly "workers" in religion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I'll do that right away, because I can't imagine anyone would object to this suggestion. Yet I would appreciate your thoughts on how to distinguish between religious figures (other than figures in religious traditions, see below) and people associated with religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose the people associated with categories are generally used as high level containers to group unlike jobs. Theologians are not religious figures, but Hindu gods are. There is some cleanup needed but we shouldn't merge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What "figure" means needs to be define. Biblical people seems reasonable to me - it's sort of like "who was in the bible". But when I think of a christian religious figure, I think of people like Jesus, Mary, the holy spirit, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a possible confusion, because when I think of a christian religious figure, I think of anyone who practices christianity. And it's quite likely that this confusion is widespread because the categories Category:Religious figures and Category:People associated with religion both contain both types of religious figures. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't think that's what Religious figure means. That shouldn't be red. It seems we use a rather broad definiton of religious figure, but it certainly includes gurus and saints and so on, but probably excludes theologians and priests and worshipers. I'm not sure if CFD is the best place to continue this discussion however, and it looks like the tree is in a pretty sorry state - might be better to close this and open up a discussion at wikiproject religions around the use of the term religious figure in biographies and categories, what it means, how it shoudl be used, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw this proposal for the time being, because I agree with you that this discussion is getting too complex and the tree is too much of a mess to have it solved simply by a merge.Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reopening the discussion here and again I'm proposing a merge, because in the wikiproject there was a quick consensus, namely that the concept of a religious figure is not defined or definable. So religious figures shouldn't have been a category in the first place. Btw, after merging with 'people associated with religion', we can remove this category from subcategories that only contain mythological figures, if needed. So that shouldn't be a bottleneck. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.can you link to that discussion? Also we have that phrase religious figure in titles, articles, and several other categories, so if the phrase is problematic, we should do a group nom, I still think we could come up with a reasonable definition.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not noticing your question any earlier. I'm not sure how the syntax of a wikiproject page would look like, but one can easily go there by typing "Wikiproject Christianity" in the search box. It was only a short discussion, don't expect too much of it, very firm though. I suppose that either 'person' or 'leader' (dependent on the context) would be a very appropriate replacement of 'figure' and this is exactly why upmerging 'Religious figures' to 'Persons associated with religion' makes perfect sense, except of course for mythological figures. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been so bold as to reclassify the Hindu mythological figures already, so that automated merging can take place easily. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_29&oldid=1160943282"