Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 15 |
== September 15 ==
=== ===
Duplicate listing 19:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Tagged on September 15 by 07:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Rename. 07:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
We use in for settlements and of for subdivisions. These are subdivisions. There are separate categories for 21:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Rename. 07:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename to 21:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Rename. No argument. 22:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
No consensus (no change). 07:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Overly restrictive, nativeness is a difficult concept to measure. Excludes people who would be covered by more general People from Birmingham i.e. those who have strong links with city but only arrived as adults. No category for such people and naming it would be untidy. 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC) :Keep This is the standard form for UK people/places categories. Someone who wasn t born in Birmingham isn t from Birmingham either. I would prefer the categories to be in the form People associated with... but I believe there have been objections to that sort of form in the past on the grounds that people would be added to categories on slender grounds. In any case, we should certainly not change just one member of a large group of categories. If you would like to see a change, you really need to start an overall discussion of the matter. 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC) ::Fair enough, I hadn t noticed it was part of a particular hierarchy. And yet for cities in the US, I found 22:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC) ::: Fromness , or the concept of being from somewhere can certainly be inherently different internationally. It seems to me to be very much a dialectical issue of equivocation. 22:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC) :Comment - Shouldn t there be international consistency No. All across Wikipedia the consistency is based on local word usage (note the recent discussion on Transport/Transportation). This is why we have but , for instance. 06:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC) ::True in general . However, with regard to the specific issue here (the meaning of native of and person from ) what do you consider to be the dialect differences between 12:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC) :Americans use People from , Brits use Natives of (QED). To someone using British English, a person from X would be someone who lives in X, whereas a native of X would be someone who was born there. I am a native of the UK, but I am a person from New Zealand. This category, from what I gather, is for people born in Birmingham, and therefore should use Native of , as per standard British English usage. 01:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC) ::Where do you get the idea that Americans use People from , Brits use Natives of with the identical meaning people born in Can you provide any examples that the phrase native of is a usage that Americans would find foreign or that when Americans say he is from California , they always specifically mean he was born in California As to your example of yourself, you appear to be saying that you are from New Zealand because you now live there. Your fromness with regard to New Zealand is a personal choice. I on the other hand lived for years in 18:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Delete. 00:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
None of the articles in this category are specific to it (save the 21:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. No argument. 22:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Merge. 00:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
*Merge. No argument. 22:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Rename. 00:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Misspelling. 19:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. Only one extant article that can fit in this category. Rename per nom if populated before the week is up. 20:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete per 05:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
No consensus (no change). 00:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Was on CSD with the reason there are no mountains in Belgium . Not empty, but the one thing in it doesn t sound much like a mountain, so moving here. ~~ ) 19:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC) :Rename 18:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Closing note however, this category is empty, and can be deleted if it remains empty under CSD, as it seems it has been empty for over a week. 00:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Delete. 00:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I changed the name to Communities of Belgium 19:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete the new name is better 07:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 15:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Empty category - 19:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Delete. 03:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
This category s name is a neologism and therefore acts as original research. It s concept is also novel, alleging a connection between computer science and general relativity which is based on a faulty understanding of relativity theory.
-- 06:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*:: The hard core GR physicists who have shown up here are not into into information science That s a belly laugh!! You might take a closer look at my user page.
*::The problem is not hostility toward interdisciplinary endeavours. Quite the contrary; my entire existence has been devoted to elucidating and explaining connections between seemingly very different areas, and in general trying to popularize important but underappreciated concepts, tools and methods. Since I too have encountered endless bafflement, I am by no means unsympathetic to the challenges faced by someone trying to persuade people in camp A to learn theory B and people in camp B to learn theory A. But you have to begin by acknowledgeing that it makes perfect sense that A-ites will be reluctant to drop everything to learn theory B just because someone like you or I claims to see beautiful, deep, and powerful connections. Blaming them for prioritizing their efforts is just childish. Rather, one needs to figure out who is most likely to be receptive, how to explain your vision to them, etc.
*::It sounds like you might be embittered by some bad experience at your uni, but it won t help resolve the present dispute if you insinuate that we have bad attitude or a hidden agenda. The first rule is to try to put yourself in our shoes. You might not like this, but the fact is you are in effect asking us to learn about distributed computing, when you have obviously bothered to learn very very little about general relativity, for if you had, you wouldn t need to ask why we feel that if you want to convince anyone with any critical faculty worth mentioning that there is a deep connection between 09:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*:::As you point out, interdisciplinary work is obviously more difficult than work within a single discipline. I have found it interesting how often attempts are made to suppress interdisciplinary work and would be interested in any research that has been done in the history, sociology, and philosophy of science on this suppression and the various tactics and strategies that have been employed. Of course there can be mitigating factors. For example, I can understand how some of my physics colleagues (especially in relativity and quantum physics) might feel burned by some of the poplular media on these topics because much of it does appear to be pretty flakey!
*:::I initially set out to report on some relationships between established fields of research that have been published. The response seems to have been vigorous attempts aimed at suppressing reporting these relationships. In the fullness of time, after every one has a chance to chill out, this attempted suppression may come to be viewed as an over reaction.-- 05:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*:::: Suppression! You just racked up another 40 points on [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html The Crackpot Index]! (See item 34).--- 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*:Oops. The purists already suppressed the new category also-- 06:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
**Comment At present, 05:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete At present, relativistic information science exists only in Carl s head. It is completely inappropriate to present as established knowledge vague personal speculations. Indeed, so far, all Carl seems to be able to say is that general relativity somehow helped motivate some concepts in his 02:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete, as per above. 04:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete The administration needs to be firm with this miscreant. The category is part of an attempt to put original research into a Wiki context. Actually, the thrust seems to be to create a global time out of event-order, without the concept of normal clocks. This could make a tiny bit of sense in the very early universe, where clocks in the usual sense can t exist and even elementary particle decays and reactions may be subject to large fluctuations. So it might have a germ of an idea. But it has no physics in it and is original work in the sense of a possible germ of a new idea; thus if the proponent can develop it further with more physics in it, it should be sent to a journal of record.I wonder if this chap is a bit in his dotage. Thomas Jefferson Jackson See, onetime director of the U.S. Naval Observatory, suffered from some kind of what used to be called distraction in his old age and published stuff like this - only more - about a 6 foot shelf of books extolling a Reverend Whewell and attacking Einstein and GR. See: The tragic case of T.J.J. See: Astronomer T.J.J. See s career started off with great promise, but he ended up working in obscurity. Mercury, November, 2002 by William Sheehan. Also: [http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/history/see_and_brown.html] and [http://home.gwi.net/~erichard/see01.htm], as well as the thorough coverage in [http://www.shpltd.co.uk/jha.pdf] pp. 29-54. See especially the first page, p. 48 with See s rediscovery of the Luminiferous Aether in the N.Y. Times, and p. 50 with his diagrams probably indicative of mental disorder. 12:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*:Peter, it seems you and I independently came to very similar conclusions viz a viz his germ of an idea and publication (I told him the same thing in the talk page of one of these categories). Er, you might be right about the other thing but we don t want to uneccessarily alienate him, or to any suggestions which could possibly be interpreted as a personal attack , and indeed, right now, I tend to think his problem is more emotional than neurological. But yeah, every aging human needs to bear in mind that unfortunately, he/she won t find it so easy to rapidly acquire and retain new knowledge as a much younger person would. Similarly for aging and poorly maintained software packages, sigh... (See my recent article on 19:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*: I also feel that the above is not good Wikiquette. Your support is appreciated, but I have seen general relativity trip up otherwise intellgent people quite regularly. If nothing else, the creativity of Carl s approach speaks against senility. Instead, I have a sense of someone with more than adequate brains that are surrounded by an overly thick skull. In any case, we should be as polite as possible (if not more so) while still making sure that our message gets across. -- 03:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*Another suggeston: recategorize to Category:Quantum Information and Relativity Theory as per the terminology of the following reference:
*: 09:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*:: A rose by any other name ... , or maybe in this case a skunk by any other name ... . Carl - If our objection was to the name, this action would be a vote for renaming, not deletion. Information in a physics context involves the ability to pass signals between observers. The actor model instead is concerned with when to send them and what to do with then once they are received. It therefore is not relevant to the subject matter of Peres et al either. Without your misconception of the relevance of the actor model to relativity, this category would not exist. For that reason, it should not exist under any name.
*:: P.S. You are warned against creating a category of this name. If the current one survives, you may nominate it for renaming. -- 23:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. Though maybe relativistic information science isn t what Carl Hewitt says it is (I honestly don t know) such a thing exists. Besides the work of 20:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*:I think the question is whether specific and implicit claims made in Carl s articles (see the talk pages) are cranky or well-founded. All the physics-literates who have spoken up here feel these claims are sounding crankier by the minute. I think the best thing is to delete the (my vote above) and let Carl pursue other avenues for his ideas. As for whether a category with a name like relativistic information science should exist, I take it you are not a physicist, in which case you d probably know why we all hate that name. No doubt as time goes by, some knowledgeable user will write more articles on suggestions by Bekenstein and others which are well known in physics, and eventually there might be enough to warrant a category. It would have another name, however, since relativistic conjures up 21:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*: I agree with CH. You are right that computation is physical, and that physics is involved in the hardware of computers. However, this is about software, and the connections between physics and software are of a very different sort. You also need to be aware that relativistic considerations are normally not considered in the creation of the hardware or software for information systems, and is never an issue for terrestial systems anyway. So I kindly call on you to reconsider your vote. Such a category may come to exist eventually, but when it does it will be a very different beast then the one created by Carl Hewitt. -- 23:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*:: You know, I was very early on quite critical of much of Hewitt s contributions to WP (see the talk pages of 02:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
*::PS. See also the talk page of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Hewitt finally relented and removed the section on the actor model. However, I didn t need to suggest Hewitt was in his dotage as someone above suggested. --03:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
*::: I think that you are missing the points:
*:::# Relativistic information science as you or I would use it refers to the ability to pass signals and/or information between events.
*:::# Relativistic information science as used by Carl Hewitt means the use of general relativity theory in software engineering. This is a totally new meaning for that term, making it a neologism and therefore a violation of the no original research policy.
*:::# If the category was retained and put to it s proper use, the result would be an empty category, which is also a violation of Wikipedia policy.
*::: So your point, while appreciated, is moot. -- 16:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
*:::: Please see my comments on the talk page of this category. In regard to your statement means the use of general relativity theory in software engineering. This is a totally new meaning for that term is very hard to justify. See the example of GPS (with a specific published reference). Now isn t that an example of what you call Hewitt s intended meaning of the term
*:::: And what is the following statement supposed to mean So your point, while appreciated, is moot. Moot has several meanings (moot court) but in this instance I take it to mean irrelevant . So should I intrepret the statement as meaning my contribituion is irrelevant because
*::::* It s wrong
*::::* it doesn t address Hewitt s definition
*:::: Or maybe you mean something else entirely (e.g., bug off).
*::::Please. in this discussion avoid using unspecific terms, hyperbole, similes or anything else whose meaning is not absolutely clear.
*::::: If you can t figure that out my meaning from the context, you are not trying. If you are not interested in trying, there is no need to continue this thread. I accept that you will not change your vote. -- 18:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
*What is the purpose of this vote It seems to me that a few Wikipedia editors should not decide at this time that the Wikipedia will never have a category in physics so that some papers published in reputable physics journals can never be categorized. For example Wikipedia needs to be able to categorize articles like the following: :*Asher Peres and Daniel Terno. Quantum Information and Relativity Theory Rev.Mod.Phys. 76 (2004) 93. :The above article states: :: [1948] for analyzing the efficiency of communication methods. How do these seemingly disparate disciplines affect each other In this review, we shall show that they are inseparably related.
:Of course there will be Wikipedia articles reporting the results of the above and future publications in this area.
:The Wikipedia needs somewhere that articles like the above can be categorized. It seems to me that this discussion ought to be about the name of that category. -- 18:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Not tagged properly (no change). 00:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Empty cat that looks like an attempt at a portal or a Wikibooks entry. Also misCapitaLized. Delete. -- 18:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. Placing articles on basic physics into a category on anaethesia is rather unencyclopedic. 22:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Closing note empty category can just be deleted as CSD or resubmitted. 00:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
===Isabelle Arnfjell===
Delete all. 00:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
: : : : : : : Here we go again. Seven categories this time. All but the last have only a single entry, the singer at the head of the section. Most, if not all of the single-genre categories have more appropriate places that she could be placed in. And 18:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete all There are plenty of musician categories already. 21:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete: redundant. The double-genre categories are currently overcategorization, though something like Folk-Rock music could be possible. 22:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment: Please be advised to use for umberlla nominations. Thank you. — 07:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC) **Converted to 05:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Delete. 00:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Capitalization. Someone had used a #REDIRECT to point this to 18:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. No argument. 22:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 15:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Empty category (also applies to 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete - unwanted, unnecessary cat (I m not sure that articles on every service station would be encyclopedic anyway). -- 09:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete, though I personally have no problem with the articles. 11:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 15:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Empty category (also applies to 05:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete - unwanted, unnecessary cat (I m not sure that articles on every service station would be encyclopedic anyway). -- 09:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete, though I personally have no problem with the articles. 11:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
merge as nominated -- 15:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Duplicate. Merge into 04:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
merge as nominated -- 15:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Abbreviations should be avoided, if nothing else. 02:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Merge. I will equally support the creation and merger to 02:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge into 03:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Don t find People are categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians. The template is used to provide navigation on each category page. in any way ambiguous. Dictates nationality foo. Either Rename to United States poets and delete American poets or merge into American poets per nom. Do not create 08:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC) **The page also says: Please note that this template may need to be modified for some categories, because some nationalities are listed as People of Foo instead of Fooian , such as Category:Musicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since United States poets does not make grammatical sense, and it s not clear if American is accepted by consensus, there is ambiguity, but only between American poets and Poets of the United States . 17:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC) ***There is also no consensus on Wikipedia that United States poets does not make grammatical sense , since the format United States foo is used in a number of categories and was supported by a number of people during the straw poll in the 18:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC) ****There doesn t need to be consensus on whether or not United States poets makes grammatical sense - it simply doesn t. United States is not an adjective. 18:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *****This argument is now circular. There is notable support to use United States poets whether you are aware of or accept that fact. As to its grammatical correctness, that is a matter of opinion, and also disregards somewhat the common usage policies within Wikipedia. 22:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC) ******There s nothing circular or opionated about it; unless you re going to attempt to make a case for it being a compound word, it is aggrammatical to shove two uninflected nouns together and pretend one is an adjective. If you re going to support the noun form, it should be Fooers of Fooland not Fooland Fooers . As stated above, this is per wikipedia policy. 22:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge into 08:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment if you can have a United States Marine you can have a US poet, it s just a noun phrase. Anyway, there was a 23:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC) **Merge into 18:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 15:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Misnomer. It has been replaced by 01:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 15:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Misnomer, like above nominee. It has been replaced by 01:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 15:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It should at least be a subcat of Police weapons, but I don t think the number of articles makes it worthwhile. 00:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Merge. Only one article. 22:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge. -- 18:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
keep -- 15:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Because Washington, District of Columbia follows category naming conventions I propose that 00:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC))
*Keep as per article title Washington, D.C. . -- User:Docu *Oppose There is no need for this. This is a unique case and using the normal form is fine. 03:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 15:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Empty, was originally a neopaganism subcat, but nothing is in it anymore. 00:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
|
|