Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< October 7 October 9 >

October 8[edit]

Category:Swedish eccentrics[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think "eccentrics" is an appropriate encyclopedic category. Subjective, can easily be seen as derogatary. Iselilja (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective and potentially derogatory category. SFB 22:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think it's either subjective or derogatory. The way I see it it's just a descrption for an odd behaviour DrKilleMoff (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – subjective, and there is no Category:Eccentrics (it was deleted at cfd in 2006). Oculi (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective and presents BLP issues as (arguably) derogatory. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective and BLP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 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:Distant galaxies[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; merge content to Category:Galaxies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clearly-defined scope for category; "distant" is a very subjective term, so cannot be converted into a useful one either. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Galaxies. Deleting would remove them from this tree and that is not acceptable. I'll let others talk about the merits of the scope. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Jim.henderson (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creator of the category has messages from 2012 dealing with lack of care in dealing with astronomy topics. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I assume all galaxies (except our own) are distant from our perspective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Had stringtheory done due diligence he would have spotted that every object in the category has a z=>5. But of course, 'distant' is arbitrary, but 'objects with redshift greater than 5', is not. All of the objects in the category have received commentary in the media as the 'most distant' object at some point in time. All of them are not just 'distant' by the sense of galaxies, but 'distant' in an astronomical sense. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to what? DexDor (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most distant" does not start at z>=5, previous galaxies have had lower redshifts and were called the most distant. That rationale does not make sense. Category:Most distant galaxy titleholders would not be limited to z>=5, and would not categorize other galaxies at those distances which are not current/former titleholders. "z>=5" is an arbitrary cut-off for galaxy categorization, unless you are building a category tree for galaxies by redshift, which would need a set of categories for various redshift buckets. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The criteria seem to be subjective. It may be that someone can provide a robust cut-off and then purge. "Galaxies with a redshift above 5", might be legitimate, but it might be necessary to have a series of categories for other ranges. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 16 October 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:Laplets[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) 00:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge Delete. Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Laplets are tablet computers with a keyboard. These were anticipated as a separate class of computers but with official iPad keyboards and detachable Surface keyboards these are usually just called tablets now. Whatever the conceptual issues, every single one of the articles in Category:Laplets are also in Category:Microsoft Surface, which I just created before I noticed this category. (Alternatively, we could delete my Microsoft Surface category.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in the Computer Hardware Task Force. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete and do not merge The Surface Pros are already categorized there, and laplet should not be categorized there. The articles are already properly categorized. "laplet" would be a touchscreen netbook. (or such as an Asus Transformer) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you consider a Microsoft Surface Pro 3 a netbook? TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The i3 version is netbook-like (and with the keyboard, a netbook). The i5 and i7 are ultrabook-like, so "super"netbooks. Our article about the ending of netbook production in 2013 is wrong, whether major brand labels make them or not is not the same as whether they are made or not. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IPv4. The Laptop and Netbook articles, about device class, which you consider wrong at its points, that netbooks are a not dead device class in your opinion, are not essentially our articles, they are also yours as well. So, I encourage you to contribute and fix a wrong statement. You should provide a very good third party reference of course, to prove your point is legit. As for Surface Pro, the only difference of i3-model, which you said is a netbook is the Core i3 CPU. If I follow your logic properly, you classify all sub 12-inch laptops as netbooks if they have i3 CPU or weaker and supernetbooks with better performing CPUs. But then I missed the whole point of a new netbook device category, when it was invented. I thought a netbook term is a portmanteau of internet and notebook. A netbook then is a cheap device for very basic use, such as Internet browsing. Speaking about Surface Pro, I cannot call it cheap, even the i3-model ($800), especially if you consider to add a Type Cover accessory for it to become a netbook (plus $150). And even the i3 model can be used for a very wider range of tasks, than just Internet browsing. It can be a desktop replacement. Sometimes I spend a lot of time explaining some basics to strangers without apparent point. TranslucentCloud (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Laplets was never under Category:Microsoft Surface. Laplets aren't specific to Microsoft's hardware. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as is. Laplets aren't just tablets with keyboards. Read the article. Laplets are a cross of tablets and laptops. iPad and most of tablets aren't capable of laptop features.
I will name few laplet devices here, just for you to get the idea what a laplet is and how it is different from iPad with keyboard: Microsoft Surface Pro / Pro 2 / Pro 3, ASUS Transformer Book T100 / T300, Acer Aspire Switch 10 / 11, Lenovo ThinkPad Helix.
Laplet is a distinctive device class, which have and should have its distinctive category. TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article, "A laplet is distinctive from a traditional Ultrabook by a presence of a touchscreen display and a detachable keyboard." So they're tablets with keyboards and touch screens (or tablet-sized laptops with removable keyboards and touchscreens)? If it's a laptop or a tablet with a touchscreen and a removable keyboard (or one that has those as an option), it would go in the category? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the Ultrabook part. Ultrabooks are laptops essentially. For the device to be qualified as a laplet it is not only required for it to have a touchscreen and a detachable keyboard, the first criterion to meet is the ability to be used as a laptop. This means that a laplet have a laptop OS, such as Windows 8.1, have USB ports to connect peripheral devices, have a some kind of display port to connect number of external displays. iPad, which can be obviously used with a detachable keyboard, doesn't meet any of these criteria, therefore it is not a cross of a laptop and a tablet — it is not a laplet. TranslucentCloud (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment even if MS has come up with the first machine with this spec, others will follow, so that we should not have a category with a brand where we are dealing with a class of computer. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MS didn't came up first. I believe Asus did. Laplet is not a brand. TranslucentCloud (talk) 18:38, 16 October 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_8

Leave a Reply