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.
Comment -- I think this needs to be split so that each of the groups in Brethren has a separate category. These might have the present category, as an ultiamte parent, despite being unrelated. The problem is more with the North American sub-cat, which is getting in the way of creating a rational tree, based on theological views. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are also Methodist and other groups that use brethren in their name. There is no clear group that can be easily designated as "brethren denominations" and the current name will tend to link unlike things. There are better names for everything involved, so we should just delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This would bring the categories name in line with others like Category:Mars in film or Category:Saturn in fiction. It also allows for the fact that several films on the list are only partially set on the moon. If you want to leave out the "The" that would be fine. I included it to differentiate from other planets moons and it read oddly to me without it. MarnetteD | Talk20:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "moon" would require "the" before it ("the moon in film") as this indicates a specific moon, (Earth's moon as opposed to one of the moon's of Jupiter). There is only one Mars (that refers to a ___location astronomical body anyway), so no need to use "the" as in "the mars in film". Brad7777 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up Brad7777. I was trying to be flexible, but, it turns out that was unnecessary. We also want to avoid confusion over "Mooning in film" which would include American Grafitti and numerous other teen comedies heehee Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk23:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned that has the problem of implying that the entire film is set on Mars. As with those that are in the Moon category some (most) are only partially set there. On the other hand I thought this might come up so if the consensus is to take up Tim!s suggestion I won't object, since my intent was to make the wording the same for both cats, and I hope that the request can be handled from here without having to file a new CFD. MarnetteD | Talk17:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for a merge. I want there to be two separate categories. I am suggesting that one or the other be renamed so that there is uniformity in there naming for clarity. MarnetteD | Talk00:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Impossible to determine which articles belong in this category vs. the Fictional dragons category. Such distinction may be considered original research. ANDROS1337TALK13:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The existing nominal scheme is "century in state", and that category also exists. __meco (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Oppose. There are numerous "Introduction to ..." articles inhabiting the category to which Wikipedia has given its imprimatur. Moreover, whether some physics concept is commonly taught in secondary school, even if not sourced, seems like it is easily source-able if challenged. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Sławomir. The category consists of topics commonly taught in high-school classes and "intro to physics 101" college classes world-wide. While I no longer have an "intro to physics" textbook on my shelves, these abound in any used bookstore in any college neighborhood. So we can readily source the idea that these really are "intro" concepts. Next: If not here, then where else could we categorize these articles? Many or most WP articles in math and physics require an advanced degree: even most physics PhD's don't know what a Liouville 1-form is, even though its really just plain-old "classical mechanics"; it would be criminal to put high-school level articles into the same category as the PhD level articles. A category for the elementary topics is quite suitable. FYI, you may enjoy this: Category:Elementary mathematics which is very rich. linas (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a list be better than a category? This is actually something I never really understood about wikipedia-- the many "lists" pages, which not only duplicate material in categories, but badly-- they're typically incomplete, juvenile, and edit-warred by college freshmen facing mid-term exams. So personally, I beleive lists are a bad idea, at a fundamental level; categories solve the job far more elegantly and neatly.linas (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many of the lists could do with a decent amount of work on them. I guess IMHO The main purpose of the categories is to organize the articles in a hierarchical manner. This doesn't help organize any articles, (because in the case of physics, there a few articles which are introductory foo, Introduction to foo or elementary foo, etc.) So organization wise it appears as an original category, that is arbitrarily assigned to physics articles, contributing to overcategorization. An article, list, glossary (etc) on the other hand, which isn't done half-heartedly would be a lot more useful for explaining "introductory physics" in terms of its topics and taking into account educational or pedagogical considerations, and a list (or better) would be more useful for someone who would be studying "introductory physics"; to browse if there are brief descriptions/related equations etc. Brad7777 (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I fail to see how its either original, or how its over-categorization. Those criticisms are usually applied to things like Category:Lead singers of do-wop bands who were born in Bristol in 1930 and played football in school which this cat certainly is not. There is no requirement whatsoever that categories be hierarchical: de-facto, they almost never are, and indeed its much better if they are not: if instead they form a directed graph (with cycles, etc.) The goal of a category is not to "explain" it's contents, but to provide a survey of related topics: a kind-of extended "see also" list, a grouping of similar things. linas (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wiki-lawyering. Instead of throwing around these terms, why don't you actually come out and explain what is subjective about it, why it fails to be defining, and in what sense it is over-categorization. You keep making accusations, but you provide no evidence or proof. I think you need to step up to the bar and get serious about this. Perform some research. Go and look at how physics is actually taught in schools. Get a textbook. Open it. Go through it. Don't spout opinion which has no basis in reality.linas (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I was first introduced to physics in primary school, I remember that we were taught that you can apply forces, and these are either pushing, pulling or twisting forces, however I do not remember part of this introduction mentioning the Parallel axis theorem or most other articles in this category. At the moment the term "introductory physics" is subjective because it is not clear what should and shouldn't be included within it. If there was an article on introductory physics (with acceptable references) mentioning the scope of this term, then this wouldn't matter. But on top of that, almost all the articles in this category, do not state they are apart of "introductory physics", therefore it can not be defining. If the category is not defining, then it is contributing to over-categorization. I hope this is clearer. Brad7777 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is any more is subjective than any other classification topic. For example, the articles on Poisson bracket, symplectic geometry, or Yang-Baxter equation are clearly not "introductory" to anyone but Gromov; no one is going to make that categorization mistake. Nor is anyone going to accidentally categorize quantum groups as a topic of Category:Atomic physics just because it has the word "quantum" in the title. Yet, there is always some ambiguity and subjectivity in any classification task: many articles on atomic physics could also be classified under chemistry. Articles such as hyperfine splitting could be classed under nuclear chemistry, atomic physics, or quantum field theory, and its would be quite "subjective" to argue that one of these categories is more appropriate than one of the others. The question is really this: can anyone with formal training in physics understand when an article belongs in the 'introductory physics' category? I think the answer is a clear "yes"; its simply not ambiguous. linas (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI have done 2 years of physics at university, therefore I have some formal training. In a way I also think it is simply not ambiguous; after all, I understand what I would class as 'introductory physics', which would be any article aimed towards children in primary school. But I also understand there is possible disagreement between what others would class as 'introductory physics'; therefore it must be ambiguous when the situation hasn't been simplified? This wouldn't even matter if the guidelines were being followed. The term 'Introductory physics' fails WP:DEFINING, so the alternative would be listify, but then the term 'Introductory physics' would have to be verifiable, which would also remove the ambiguity of interpretation of the term. Brad7777 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly subjective "This category includes topics in physics that are commonly taught in middle school or high school, or may be in the curriculum for college freshmen. See also the list of basic physics topics. The main article for this category is Outline of physics." It seems odd to categorise physical laws by the level of education at which they are taught. I concur with Brad7777's comment that a list would better serve the intended purpose. Tim! (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say "highly subjective"? No professor accidentally walks into a physics 101 class, and accidentally starts lecturing on Morse theory, which is a kind of formulation of classical mechanics, nor do they use Abraham and Marsden for the textbook. (Think back-- what year did you finally stat reading Abraham & Marsden, if ever?) There's nothing subjective in the idea that one must know certain basic things before moving on to advanced things. Culturally, there is widespread agreement on this topic, and it can be seen simply by looking at the material covered in textbooks. There is nothing at all subjective about it. linas (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article-ify since it seems inappropriate to have a category on it, since not only does introductory physics cover many of the topics contained within, but advanced physics as well. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inclusion criteria is effectively arbitrary. Also note that there are only 3 "introduction to ..." type articles in the category. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say "arbitrary"? This is rebutted above, so why say it again? What, exactly, is "arbitrary" about it? linas (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is only a very rough hazy definition of what constitutes introductory physics. Firstly, what level do we aim it: introductory for those with no scientific background, for those in secondary school or for first year undergraduate physics courses? What constitutes a suitable introductory text book: Undergraduate textbooks, Generic Physics books, Pop science books? IRWolfie- (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A pop-sci book would not constitute "introductory physics". I'm not sure what a "generic physics" book is; if a high-school textbook, then yes. First year undergraduate textbooks are "introductory", second-year are not. linas (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What? Sure we do, we do it all the time. Its a major organizing principle behind much of the sciences in wikipedia; its not just this one category. Its ingrained in the nature of scientific understanding. What part of wikipedia do *you* edit? Do you actually get involved in science articles?linas (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Comment: The sourcing criterion in Wikipedia:CAT#Articles applies to articles, not the categories themselves. It is easy enough to verify that an article belongs in this category - it just has to be covered in an introductory textbook. It is also easy to determine which textbooks are appropriate sources because they always say in the preface what level they are intended for. Perfectly neutral. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As being a concept in "introductory physics" isn't defining for most if not all of these articles, it contributes to over categorization. A list would be just as helpful. Brad7777 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with JRSpriggs, it does no harm and may be useful. I don't understand the argument that it's somehow anti-NPOV; the stuff covered in a (US) high-school course, plus, roughly speaking, the contents of college courses with names like "intro to physics", and the content of textbooks for such courses, is pretty standard. - Virginia-American (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful navigation aid. No NPOV problem here because this categorisation is uncontroversial - we are hardly going to see a POV dispute over whether some topic is "introductory" or not. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Commonly taught" in middle/elementary/high school is precise enough to warrant a category. In my experience, categories on Wikipedia are typically sourced from within the articles they contain, so if all the articles contained in the category contain sourced statements showing that the subject of the article is indeed a common part of pre-college curriculum, then the whole rationale of the proposer simply breaks down. Piyush (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as has already been pointed out Category:Elementary mathematics already exists, is consider a good example of a category. There is no reason why we cannot work on this category and bring it up too the levels of Category:Elementary mathematics. The only way I see that not happening is if this category is deleted based on some fact-free bombardment with Wikipedia policy articles. Piyush (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly do, and in fact, in Mathematics, Elementary mathematics is a rather well used term: see for example Elementary proof. No matter what the result of this debate, I do hope nobody gets it into their head that even the elementary mathematics category is "overcategorization" and goes ahead trying to delete it. Piyush (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such lack of consistency, unless someone wants to manufacture one. The only two options I have seen so far are "pre-college" and "first-year college". At least from what I have seen, most of the difference between the two consists not in the topic themselves, but in the way the topics themselves are presented. For example, a high school curriculum would probably define moment of inertia in a ad-hoc way (corresponding to the first three sections of the article), while a first-year college may give a glimpse of the tensor formulation (section four in the same article). Piyush (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose deletion. I think this category is both helpful and handy. It is easier to access the simpler concepts in one single category rather than try to wade through a much larger category such as Category:Physics. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 22#Category:Brethren denominations. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)