Category talk:Cretaceous Montana
purpose?[edit]
@Abyssal: What is the purpose and scope of this category? It seems to lack any actual definition other then something is related to the Cretaceous and to Colorado.--Kevmin § 16:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm splitting the overly huge stratigraphic units of North America by period categories (they tended to have hundreds of articles) to the level of state. "Cretaceous Montana" sounds a lot pithier than "Cretaceous stratigraphic units of Montana" or something even if they're both being used the same way. Like you said, there's the potential for broader use in the future if someone wants to add the appropriate articles, but for now I think specifying in the category name that it's for stratigraphic units is a bit redundant. How do you like the geologic time navigation template, btw? Abyssal (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- As it stands the Category name itself leaves the category definition way too broad (in my opinion) i could easily fill it with Cretaceous taxa described or reported from Montana, resulting in just as overfull category. Also anyone that comes across the category besides you will not see that that is the purpose of the Cat. Im not sure the nav template as it structured will be used much to be honest.--Kevmin § 16:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- There's been serious talk about using geologic formations as the basis of our categorization scheme for the age-based categorization of prehistoric animals, so in the end that might not be such a big deal, prehistoric critters put in this ctaegory would just have to be migrated down the category tree to their host formation's category. What's wrong with the template btw? I've been thinking of having periods absent from the region the category's being used for greyed out and the period name struck through, but I'm not sure if that would require separate templates for different areas or not. Is the presence of periods in the template that are absent in the area what you dislike about it? Abyssal (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: We should really continue this discussion. Abyssal (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- You mention serious talk on the formations as a basis for categorization, can you provide a link? Overall though I will say that one thing we should be striving for is unambiguity, and the titling doesnt really make that. It provides no indication of its purpose. And in general, since formations do not have any relation to political boundaries, it doesnt seem to make sense to use states in the structuring.--Kevmin § 18:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kevmin:I think I meant this although that discussion was much briefer than I remember it being. If you really dislike the title as-is I could put in a bot request to have it renamed "Cretaceous geology of Montana" or something similar. I disagree that states don't make a reasonable way to divide up stratigraphic unit categories geographically. For one thing, even on the scale of continents there are elements of subjectivity. Europe and Asia are only separated culturally. Not to mention that many isolated landmasses are nevertheless too small to be considered continents. Then take into consideration continental drift and situations like the adherence of formerly Gondwanan India to south Asia and I don't think you can really argue that continents can be used to sort stratigraphic units geographically in an objective fashion. And if we have to sort them based on relative or cultural criteria anyway, why not do so in the most functional manner that doesn't leaves us with multi-hundred article categories? Not to mention that I believe that sorting by state has intrinsic value to readers since I believe readers of articles on regional geology are likely to want to know about their own region first and foremost, and excessively broad geographic categorization would make that difficult. Abyssal (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is indeed a very brief discussion and doesnt seem to really address what these categories are doing. The names should definitely be changed at the very least, to reflect what their purpose is. How many multi-hundred articles categories are there? I know the West coast geology pages are no here near that extensive.--Kevmin § 15:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kevmin:I think I meant this although that discussion was much briefer than I remember it being. If you really dislike the title as-is I could put in a bot request to have it renamed "Cretaceous geology of Montana" or something similar. I disagree that states don't make a reasonable way to divide up stratigraphic unit categories geographically. For one thing, even on the scale of continents there are elements of subjectivity. Europe and Asia are only separated culturally. Not to mention that many isolated landmasses are nevertheless too small to be considered continents. Then take into consideration continental drift and situations like the adherence of formerly Gondwanan India to south Asia and I don't think you can really argue that continents can be used to sort stratigraphic units geographically in an objective fashion. And if we have to sort them based on relative or cultural criteria anyway, why not do so in the most functional manner that doesn't leaves us with multi-hundred article categories? Not to mention that I believe that sorting by state has intrinsic value to readers since I believe readers of articles on regional geology are likely to want to know about their own region first and foremost, and excessively broad geographic categorization would make that difficult. Abyssal (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- You mention serious talk on the formations as a basis for categorization, can you provide a link? Overall though I will say that one thing we should be striving for is unambiguity, and the titling doesnt really make that. It provides no indication of its purpose. And in general, since formations do not have any relation to political boundaries, it doesnt seem to make sense to use states in the structuring.--Kevmin § 18:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: We should really continue this discussion. Abyssal (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- There's been serious talk about using geologic formations as the basis of our categorization scheme for the age-based categorization of prehistoric animals, so in the end that might not be such a big deal, prehistoric critters put in this ctaegory would just have to be migrated down the category tree to their host formation's category. What's wrong with the template btw? I've been thinking of having periods absent from the region the category's being used for greyed out and the period name struck through, but I'm not sure if that would require separate templates for different areas or not. Is the presence of periods in the template that are absent in the area what you dislike about it? Abyssal (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- As it stands the Category name itself leaves the category definition way too broad (in my opinion) i could easily fill it with Cretaceous taxa described or reported from Montana, resulting in just as overfull category. Also anyone that comes across the category besides you will not see that that is the purpose of the Cat. Im not sure the nav template as it structured will be used much to be honest.--Kevmin § 16:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)