Category talk:Superhard materials
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
CfD discussion
[edit]The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The consensus was to keep this category.
This is a pointless melange of fact and fiction. Those looking for Silicon carbide and alike wouldn't want to find Adamantium and alike - and vice versa. --Pjacobi 19:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) With the recent clarification my original request for deletion is void. Keep. --Pjacobi 17:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I removed the fiction and left explicit statement on the category page to put fictions elsewhere. -Sean Curtin 01:03, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Why must the category be deleted if the two or three fictional substances are to be removed. The rest of the substances are quite real, and now that materals of greater hardness than diamond are being created, it is appropriate to have such a category. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk
]] 02:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If it is clear, that it's for real material only, it may stay. I consider such small categories useless, but that's another story and no reason to delete. --Pjacobi 10:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, its questionable given the nature of fullerene molecules if it will be stay small in a few years. One of the advantages of wikipedia is that it can cover emergent content like this without worrying about "small topics" taking the space that could be really used by larger explainations of the "big topics". Thusly, we can stay ahead of the curve that way by shaving small but emergent categories like this. I too dislike useless small categories, but if is a growing small category, like "stealth technologies" (I am not sure if that one exists), then it is useful than a category like "United States Presidents who have been impeached" (there are only two, and it it occurs at a rate of about one every 110 years). So if enough people aggree, can we remove the category for deletion tag. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk ]] 23:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, its questionable given the nature of fullerene molecules if it will be stay small in a few years. One of the advantages of wikipedia is that it can cover emergent content like this without worrying about "small topics" taking the space that could be really used by larger explainations of the "big topics". Thusly, we can stay ahead of the curve that way by shaving small but emergent categories like this. I too dislike useless small categories, but if is a growing small category, like "stealth technologies" (I am not sure if that one exists), then it is useful than a category like "United States Presidents who have been impeached" (there are only two, and it it occurs at a rate of about one every 110 years). So if enough people aggree, can we remove the category for deletion tag. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk
- If it is clear, that it's for real material only, it may stay. I consider such small categories useless, but that's another story and no reason to delete. --Pjacobi 10:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Why must the category be deleted if the two or three fictional substances are to be removed. The rest of the substances are quite real, and now that materals of greater hardness than diamond are being created, it is appropriate to have such a category. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk
- Keep. A valid and well-defined category. Mikkalai 23:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Just to put into force my statements before --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk ]] 03:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
