Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Chemistry (unsorted)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
  • Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Category:Chemistry (unsorted)}}--~~~~
  • On the log, add :
    {{Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Chemistry (unsorted)}}
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Chemistry (unsorted)[edit]

Combined with the CDF's on Category:Media needing chemical classification and Category:Unidentified chemistry[edit]

This is redirect does not make any sense. Unsorted is not unidentified. If unsorted categories are unwanted this one should be deleted. Otherwise the category should be reinstalled. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As explained on User_talk:Cwbm_(commons)#Chemistry_.28unsorted.29, unsorted categories are unwanted. The Category:Chemistry (unsorted) redirect is installed to prevent recreation of that category over and over again. --Foroa (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This is now the fourth time you are claiming that unsorted categories are unwanted without any prove that this is not your private opinion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess you have an equally good explanation why you created a redundant category to Category:Media needing chemical classification. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right. Someone (not me) created "yet another to be classified" category. Time to harmonise now. --Foroa (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A category is a set. Sets are always unsorted. The kind of dump categories are unwanted. Delete the category or keep it as a redirect. Multichill (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no guideline or earlier discussion that these kind of categories are unwanted. By adding a move request you circumvented the discussion to create facts. The whole procedure was not correct. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to name categories as "unsorted". Big general categories always contain files that are unsorted anyway, they are unsorted per definition, then users can move them into more specific categories. You may wish to read a bit more on how categories work on Commons in Commons:Categories. Patrícia msg 09:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look in Category:Unidentified subjects, Category:Unidentified organisms and Category:Unidentified plants and their subcategories to have a better idea what the emerging de facto standard is. --Foroa (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take an english-dutch-dictionary to find aut the difference between „unsorted“ and „unidentified“. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Chemistry (unsorted) is clearly to be deleted. Category:Media needing chemical classification and Category:Unidentified chemistry should be merged into one (because as soon as something is identified, it should be classified by the means of categorization). I prefer the first version because it puts a stress on the needed work. --Eusebius (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Structural formulae (or reaction mechanisms) are identified in the most cases, but it is another thing to categorize them correctly. While photographers of animals or plants could not exactly identify the object, the uploaders of structural formulae (normally) always know what they drew. Hence, a category named “Unidentified chemistry” is nonsense for these images. However, I could live with Category:Media needing chemical classification. --Leyo 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Leyo, Category:Media needing chemical classification seems to be the best option. It's really best to not spread things across different maintenance categories. Patrícia msg 18:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Almost all media in Category:Chemistry (marked as requiring diffusion) need classification, so I see no point in adding a separate "classification" category unless collecting problem cases under the dust. --Foroa (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest du keep Category:Media needing chemical classification and to convert Category:Unidentified chemistry to a category redirect. Category:Chemistry (unsorted) can be deleted. I will do that soon. --Leyo 11:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to use Category:Unidentified chemistry as for any other unidentified topic, the de facto standard on commons. I can convert Category:Media needing chemical classification to a redirect if need be. --Foroa (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I know your position, but it seems that you are alone with it. To have Category:Unidentified chemistry as a redirect is a compromise between keeping as the main category and deletion IMHO. --Leyo 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing stale thread: Category:Chemistry (unsorted) was already deleted on 2009 April 6 by Foroa. Consensus seems to be to use Category:Media needing chemical classification that emphasizes the work to do. Converting Category:Unidentified chemistry into a redirect. -- User:Docu at 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)