Category talk:Stars
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Subcategorization
[edit] Category: List of stars
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects
- Astronomical object
- Astronomical naming conventions
- User talk
- Please stop and discuss at Category talk:Stars. I left you a message at User talk:132.205.95.65. --David Iberri | Talk 00:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Why are you moving articles from Category:Stars to Category:List of stars. Articles about stars, e.g. 14 Herculis, belong in Category:Stars, just like an article on a particular frog, e.g. Leopard frog, belongs in Category:Frogs. Please discuss these changes before you make any more. --David Iberri | Talk 23:58, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- This category contains article about taxa about the family level in the order Anura - the frogs and toads. According to the Category:Frogs statement, only articles in the Family (biology) level of frogs should be there, not the genera or species level articles. If it were to be similar to the frogs category, then individual stars would still not appear on Category:Stars page. 132.205.94.190 00:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hi; are you sure changing Category:Stars to Category:List of stars is such a wise move? Categories are not lists, so naming a category a list is rather silly, don't you think? We don't have "Article about Tony Blair", for example. -- Hadal 05:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking about it, and the Category Stars page is getting long, longer with each new star, so that the articles that aren't about a particular star are getting lost there. So separating out the stars into "List of stars" seemed to be a bright idea. I'll stop and let you think about it. 132.205.15.43 05:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, now I understand what you're trying to do. But is there no better way of subcategorising the stars? There's already a Category:Binary stars for entries like Castor (star), and a Category:Star systems for entires like Beta Hydri. If the stars are already in a subcategory, there's no need to put them in the main Stars category or another subcategory like "List of stars", is there? -- Hadal 06:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If we wish to have a category for all stars, regardless of type, then there'll be a list of them in one place. OFcourse that could be that we choose not to do that, but Category Stars does that now, so just moving it keeps it as status quo. It also clears up the main category, so you can format it some other way, instead of a dump of stars. Putting stars by type is a good idea, but probably stars by constellation would be better for an amateur stargazer? In any case, either way, a lot of new categories would be required. 132.205.15.43 23:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Although thinking about it, should there be a sub-cat under constellation stars for the stars that actually mark the outline of the constellation?
- I understand you're trying to unclutter the main Stars category, but making a "List of stars" to sweep them under the carpet isn't the best course of action, IMHO. If a star is already in a subcategory of Category:Stars, it doesn't need to be in the main category. For example, Castor is already in Star systems > Multiple stars, so it needn't be at Stars or List of stars. I do understand your reasoning, but as I tried to explain the other day, categories are not meant to play the role of lists. By moving them to List of stars, you're just creating another unstructured dump, which isn't what a category should be like. There should be structure, as with the frogs; by type seems the most logical, though I can't really say whether outlines of constellations would be appropriate or not. Perhaps it'd be best to wait for more input from the regular astronomy contributors? I'm not one of them (I've only written one astronomy-themed article to date): I've merely an interest in the subject and saw your edits scroll by on RC. Reviewing this collated page, however, it seems I'm not the only one who thinks the categorisation should be done differently. I do appreciate your efforts, but I think waiting for some semblance of consensus might be wise, lest we waste more time recategorising. -- Hadal 03:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Currently, star clusters don't appear on the main Category:Stars page, and are properly place within. The move of stars off the main category page atleast makes navigation easier to use while a more practicable solution is determined. It also easily complements the list of stars article. Leaving it as is seems to be the less navigatable way of doing it, while waiting for a categorization scheme to drop into place. 132.205.94.190 03:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hi again, thanks for your work on categorisation. I notice you've been doing the same thing to Category:Galaxies as Category:Stars so I thought I'd append my comment to this thread.
I agree with what you said, but instead of moving the galaxy articles to Category:List of galaxies, wouldn't it be better to move the articles about types of galaxies to Category:Types of galaxies or something like that? That way it cleans up the galaxy category, and everything's symantically correct. We could do the same thing with stars too. JYolkowski 22:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The problem with galaxies is that not everyone has an agreed hubble type to everyone of them, and some have different types depending on which authority you use. And some galaxies don't have a type, since one has not been decided yet, or because the observed details lack sufficient elucidation to place a galaxy. Also there are two major classification systems, the de Vaucoulier (sp?) method and the Hubble method. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any articles on the former, which is a pity, since it is used so much. So a list of galaxies seems somewhat advisable. I did put a note saying that anyone should categorize galaxies otherwise as well. (Galaxies by constellation, galaxies by cluster, galaxies by type). 132.205.15.43 23:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What I meant was to use Category:Galaxies for articles on actual galaxies, articles like Spiral Galaxy NGC 2403 and to use Category:Types of galaxies for articles like Elliptical galaxy and Lenticular galaxy and stuff like that. Make sense? JYolkowski 23:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The trouble there is that there are articles about galaxies that do not pertain to a specific type of galaxy, or that would otherwise not merit inclusion into a Category Types of galaxies. 132.205.15.43 23:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've placed a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Category:Stars for this issue. 132.205.15.43 04:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Category list of stars and list of galaxies placed under CfD. 132.205.15.43 00:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
