Category talk:Earth observation satellites of Russia

Move was wrong
Discussion was at [satellites of Russia|Category Log 2016-07-31], a single vote and from people that evidently know nothing about satellites.

It is absolutely wrong. GLONASS is a navigation satellite, Ekspress (satellite constellation) are communications satellites, and those are just two examples that I've worked in the last month. Both series are Earth satellites of Russia but no Earth observation, which is a specific category of satellite type! Russia also had satellites around other planets, that's why this category was done this way. Proposing the category move without a minimum understanding about the nature of artificial satellites is not good editing. Now I have to go around and create new categories and go article by article seeing if it applies. – Baldusi (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This separations is completely different from the original category. The issue is that the Soviet Union/Russia did had artificial satellites outside of Earth. That is why the original category was there. Earth observation is just one subcategory. If you did wanted to make a better layout, Category:Satellites of Russia could have been divided in Category:Venus satellites of Russia, Category:Mars satellites of Russia and Category:Earth satellites of Russia.
 * Renaming to Earth observation was a complete mistake. I don't know if any of you is aware of the fact the EO specifically excludes military satellites, for example. And a lot of scientific satellite that do orbit Earth are not Earth Observation, like space telescopes or Sun observation. Now that I went over the satellites on the original category, I had not only to create two more categories under Category:Satellites of Russia, but after cleaning only 3 (three) satellites were left. One thing is renaming for better scoping, another is completely changing the meaning of the category. Better delete it than do such a thing. Please, don't mess with the highly technical articles without a reasonable understanding. I'm sorry if I come across to strong, but I'm extremely annoyed by a successive series of actions of editors without the most basic understanding of technical subject and I might be overly sensitive. I really want this to be a good lesson for everybody. – Baldusi (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies for unintentionally creating a category split, and thank you for resolving the situation. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)