Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 17

< April 16	April 18 >

April 17

NEW NOMINATIONS

Magmatism not igneous petrology

Categories are tagged in their talk page. An now they are all listed here. I expanded the rationale.

Propose moving 30+ categories with similar names:

‎*Category:Archean igneous petrology to Category:Archean magmatism

Category:Precambrian igneous petrology to Category:Precambrian magmatism

‎The rationales is that "igneous petrology" is inadequate and magmatism both more precise and clear. These categories group two types of article: 1) articles about volcanism and volcanic rocks and 2) articles about intrusions. Both of these kind of rocks and phenomenta are derived from the artivitiy of molten rock under earth's surface, that is magma. Igneous and magmatic rocks are the same, but petrology refers to a science. By analogy do we talk about concise Category:Freshwater molluscs or about Category:Freshwater malacology?

A secondary reason is that igneous petrology sounds extraneous to those unfamiliar with geology while magmatism is easier to grasp. –Mamayuco (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is follow-up on yesterday's nomination which was closed for procedural reasons and in which User:Volcanoguy opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know nothing about geology but this is one of several subcat schemes for Category:Igneous petrology, whereas there is no Category:Magmatism (and Magmatism is merely an unreferenced stub). Oculi (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oculi, as said above igneous petrology is the science not the phenomenon or rock itself. While it would be nice to a simiar name to a parent category this is not appropiate in this case. Further magmatism is not the exclusive subject of igneous petrology as it is but also studied in geophysics, planetary science, physical volcanology and so on. Mamayuco (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take a further look at how rocks are categorized on Wikipedia. Stratigraphic units are categorized under Category:Stratigraphy, not the process by which they formed. Volcanoguy 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes stratigraphy has historically been treated so, magmatic activity not. Stratigraphy has always been a description on the order of layers while igneous petrology has cheifly been the study of magmatic processes and petrogenesis. Your analogy is misleading.Mamayuco (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Source? Volcanoguy 22:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As stated in the last nomination, the igneous petrology categories are for igneous formations, not a phenomenon. Renaming categories after a phenomenon when that is not what the categories are for is misleading. Also, the categories are not just for magmatic rocks but also volcanic rocks, the latter of which are grouped into a volcanism subcategory which I believe should be changed to volcanology. It's no different than, for example, Category:Devonian geology. Volcanoguy 23:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy, since when are volcanic rocks not magmatic? Where did you got that idea from? Here a few links to help you out of that misunderstanding. [1]. Look at this link [2] how can it be that numerous authors talk about arc magmatism mentioning volcanic rocks? By your view magmatism would only be the emplacement of plutons and batholiths which is non-factual and a ridiculous claim! Mamayuco (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the meaning of "magmatism" has been widened over the years (by probably too many geologists) to include not only the processes by which intrusive rocks are formed but also the processes by which volcanic rocks are formed. Magma is molten rock below the surface whereas lava is molten rock on the surface. Volcanoguy 21:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and that alleged widening has now made Google Scholar and GeoRef find 20,700 repectively 10,886 "magmatic arc"s. In the vocabulary of modern igneous petrologist magmatism has a meaning that do not exclude volcanism onless explicitely mentioned. Mamayuco (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And since that leads to confusion, I'm sticking with the original definition. Volcanoguy 22:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Seems rather frivolous - magmatism is not a synonym for igneous petrology. The field of igneous petrology is broader than magmatism as anyone who has studied the subject should know. Vsmith (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere is there any claim thing are fully synonymous. For what the categories are chiefly about magmatism is more appropriate. If any post-magmatic metasomatism or similar things are left out by the updated categorization it can be fitted elsewhere. Frivolous to me would be to retain what is more the name of an actual discipline than of the thing itself and a name laypeople will not understand. Inappropriate for two reasons!— Mamayuco (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and laypeople will surely understand magmatism :) If that be the goal - then rename it to rocks formed underground from a molton state or some such. Vsmith (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Catholics by state and 3 others

Propose deleting Category:American Catholics by state - Template:Lc1
along with Category:Roman Catholics from California, Category:Roman Catholics from Michigan, and Category:Roman Catholics from South Dakota. Quis separabit? 17:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: -- series of new categories created by another editor, styled as Category:American Catholics by state, which wording was corrected to Category:American Roman Catholics by state as there is no such thing, for taxonomic or encyclopaedic purposes as "American Catholics", unlike "Anglo-Catholics" or "Greek Catholics" or "Eastern-rite Catholics". Individual categories by state were created by another editor as Category:Catholics from Wisconsin, Category:Catholics from Wyoming, etc., which seems acceptable. No sense overusing the adjective "Roman". Quis separabit? 17:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose, nominator has moved the category from Category:American Catholics by state to Category:American Roman Catholics by state out of process, without waiting for the outcome of the discussion, and the category hasn't been tagged either. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bigg Boss participants

Propose deleting Category:Bigg Boss participants - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: As all participants in the series are already "celebrities", this category fails WP:PERFCAT. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 21#Category:Celebrity Big Brother (UK) contestants for precedent. --wooden superman 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Angiosperms of Asia

Propose deleting Category:Angiosperms of Asia - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: There is a well understood system for categorizing the distribution of plants, described in detail at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Caftaric made no attempt to obtain consensus for adding additional categories (a habit which has caused problems in the past). See, as just one example, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 26#Category:Deuterostomes of Asia. Unfortunately this user has a history of never seeking consensus before creating categories and rarely discussing afterwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Caftaric is a nuisance and should not be allowed anywhere near the category system. Oculi (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This opens the door to a huge mess of intersectional categories. We have well-developed non-intersecting category systems in place for plant distributions and for plant classification. We don't need Category:Rosaceae of China when we have Category:Rosaceae and Category:Flora of China Plantdrew (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Nations non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:United Nations non-governmental organizations to Category:Non-governmental organizations related to the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category name wrongly suggests these are organizations of the United Nations, which is not actually the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gender pay gap by country

Propose merging Category:Gender pay gap by country to Category:Gender pay gap

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, this category and its parent category together contain six articles only. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Actually I don't think WP:SMALLCAT directly applies, since more articles could be created, but at the moment I don't see why a merge wouldn't be appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with no prejudice against re-creation if and when there are more articles. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, because a) 5 articles is usually accepted as enough to make a viable category; b) it has plenty of scope for expansion; c) it also allows the by-country pages to be directly grouped under Category:Gender equality by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 05:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The category shouldn't have been created (no need to subdivide a category of 6 articles), the category shouldn't have been CFDed for SMALLCAT. I also disagree with BHG's point c (if the GPG-by-country cat exists then it should be in a by-country parent cat, but that doesn't mean the GPG-by-country cat is needed). On balance - oppose. DexDor^(talk) 06:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]