Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 24

< March 23	March 25 >

March 24

Category:Category-theoretic categories

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: rename to Category:Categories in category theory, as no other name has gained consensus as better, and there seems to be consensus that the old name is worse. If I understand correctly: the objection to this name (by Taku) is that categories like Category of abelian groups (which is a member here) "do appear outside the category theory", but since that member does appear in category theory, the proposed name is not incorrect. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Category-theoretic categories to Category:Categories in category theory

Nominator's rationale: If I understand rightly, "category-theoretic categories" merely means categories associated with category theory. If that's the case, this is simpler wording. The problem is that "category-theoretic" might have some precise meaning that I'm missing, and part of the reason for renaming is to ensure that nobody thinks the name has technical meanings more precise than category theory in general. I'm open to slight alternate versions, e.g. "Categories of category theory", if others think those alternate versions are better. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The purpose of the "category-theoretic" is to mark these as being the kind of category considered in category theory and to distinguish them from Category:Wikipedia categories. So if we're going to rename this one to "Categories in category theory", shouldn't we also consider renaming the other one to "Categories in Wikipedia" for consistency? That said, I don't have a strong opinion on this, only a mild preference that Keenan Pepper's comment on Category talk:Category-theoretic categories that "this page has one of the most ridiculous names in all Wikipedia" should continue to be true. But I don't think the proposed name makes much difference in that respect. On the other hand, the other suggested name "categories of category theory" is slightly problematic as it is too easily misread as meaning something like "categories of categories in category theory" which (if it existed) would be a subcategory with only one member, Category of small categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion, how about Category:Categories (mathematics)? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 16:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have tagged the category as belonging to WikiProject Maths, and left a note at WT:MATH. – Fayenatic London 16:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The purpose of the category is to enumerate the objects of Cat (the category of all categories) that have a Wikipedia article. The strange title seems necessary to communicate that this is not about "categories" in the sense of Wikipedia categories and, moreover, that the inhabitants of the category under discussion should be objects of Cat, as opposed to articles that are about category theory in general. On my reading, the proposed change to Category: Categories (mathematics) fails this latter disambiguation. I don't feel strongly about Category:Categories in category theory. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then forget about Category:Categories (mathematics) as it's leading to another type of ambiguity. Support nomination as slightly clearer than the original name. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A different route would be a rename to Category:Objects of the category of all categories, which after all is what we mean. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty complicated. Wouldn't Category:Objects of category theory suffice? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. An object in category theory is an object of a category. So it might be a group (in the category of groups) a set (in the category of sets). What we want are the objects in the category of categories Cat, not the objects in the other categories (Group, Set, etc). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about "Category: Categories in mathematics? Since I don't think there is a category that is not category-theoretic, "category-theoretic category" sounds weird. Category: Categories in category theory isn't good since categories like category of abelian groups do appear outside the category theory. -- Taku (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REname somehow -- To my mind Category: Categories in mathematics of the best suggestion so far. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Sławomir Biały earlier objected to Category:Categories (mathematics), which is almost the same name, as they think a name like this is not a clear enough descriptor of a set category, it might attract articles about category theory as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories in mathematics is even worse. Honestly, what is wrong with Category:Objects in the category of all categories? It is the mathematically correct and precise descriptor. WP:CATNAME points out that it is important in technical areas to use the correct names for the category titles: "Particularly for technical subjects, use words and phrases which exist in reliable sources, so that those sources may be used to support inclusion of articles." Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some degree of ambiguity for sure; for example, "category" in Baire's category theorem has nothing to do with categories in the sense in the category theory. (That's what Sławomir Biały had in mind?) Personally I don't think this is much of issue since the use of "category" in the non-category-theoretic sense in mathematics is quite rare (that Baire example may be the only one.) -- Taku (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some relevant thread that discusses why putting "category-theory" is right or wrong (http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2133317/the-schema-of-category-theory-used-without-mentioning-category-theory) This discussiom suggests why "category-theoretic categories" might not be a wrong name (while "categories in category theory" is wrong). "Objects in the category of all (small) categories" is technically correct for sure; please notice you can't drop "small" here. But for me "categories in mathematics" sounds unambiguous enough. -- Taku (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TakuyaMurata: Most of the members of this collection are not small. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: I know that's why I said "(small)" instead of small, meaning that we fix some universe (Grothendieck universe) and then consider categories (I mean objects) in there so that we can consider the category like the category of abelian groups as an object of Cat; namely, we consider the category of (small) abelian groups. We don't need to be explicit about choices of universe but that technicality need to be recognized. Otherwise, how to do you construct the category of all categories? -- Taku (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2017 (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:Radio stations of the Instituto Mexicano de la Radio

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: rename. – Fayenatic London 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations of the Instituto Mexicano de la Radio to Category:Instituto Mexicano de la Radio

Nominator's rationale: A shorter name would permit the scope of the category to be broadened if needed — the main article isn't even in the category as it isn't a radio station. The shorter name would also match other categories on Mexico radio station groups. Raymie (t • c) 05:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, nomination (almost) satisfies WP:C2C and WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2017 (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.

Cadenatres

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. – Fayenatic London 19:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cadenatres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cadenatres affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This "network" only ever had three affiliates (it primarily reached people via cable carriage), and there is no need for it to have its own category as none of its shows had articles. Raymie (t • c) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2017 (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:Tamaulipas radio templates

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: rename. I will also copy the current members into the parent Category:Mexico radio navigational boxes (which has no other local sub-categories). – Fayenatic London 20:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tamaulipas radio templates to Category:Tamaulipas media navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Expand scope of category to include television. There used to be several more templates but these have been TfD'd or reused elsewhere. Raymie (t • c) 04:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question are there any Tamaulipas TV navigational boxes at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: We have three: {{Rio Grande Valley TV}}, {{Laredo TV}} and {{Tampico TV}}. The first two list US and Mexican stations as they are for border markets. Raymie (t • c) 07:06, 19 April 2017 (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.