< February 14 February 16 >

February 15

Years in the Holy Roman Empire (1000-1500)

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: merge/delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT to decades. The large amount of year categories contain only one article, but there is sufficient content to keep decade categories. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example the 15th century contains just over 40 articles (excluding establishments and disestablishments subcats), this will result in on average 4 articles per decade. Earlier centuries obviously less. It is a very conservative nomination after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2018 (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:Thanh Hóa F.C. players

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: Speedy rename WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Thanh Hóa F.C. players to Category:FLC Thanh Hóa F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with article title for the team, which is at FLC Thanh Hóa F.C., whereas Thanh Hóa F.C. is a disambiguation page. Jellyman (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:04, 16 February 2018 (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:Information storage

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 07:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing of a speedy nomination which I contested as needing more input. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at WP:CFDS[1]
  • Category:Information storage to Category:Data storage – C2D: Information storage redirects to Data storage. ghouston (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose @Ghouston: there is an article redirect, but this would narrow the scope of the category. The article data storage is mostly about recording media, but the category includes Category:Archives and Category:Museums. They mostly don't fit under that definition of data storage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe there is any significant different between "information" and "data" in this context. Data storage starts with "Data storage is the ecording (storing) of information (data) in a storage medium" so it's using the terms as synonyms. I don't think museums should even be in the category: they may store data along with objects, but there are a lot of organisations that store data. I don't see any problem with Archives. As for Data vs Information, definitions vary and distinguishing them is splitting hairs. Data says at one point: "According to a common view, data is collected and analyzed; data only becomes information suitable for making decisions once it has been analyzed in some fashion", suggesting that information is a subset of data, yet Category:Data is a subcategory of Category:Information. ghouston (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ghouston: you make a good case, but I'm not entirely persuaded by that analysis, which seems to me to be possibly a little too tied to a computing perspective. I have no expertise in the field, so I maybe wholly wrong, but I think this needs a full discussion to allow other editors to contribute.
    If you like, I can do a procedural nomination which includes a copy of our discussion here; alternatively you could create the full discussion setting out your rationale at the head. Which would you prefer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's information theory as much as computing. A bit is the basic unit of information, and is also the basic unit of data. It seems unlikely to me that data and information can be distinguished in any meaningful way in categories. But please go ahead with whatever procedure is required. ghouston (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghouston: sorry that those didn't resolve for you. They're the permanent links that EBSCOhost provides and without access, they don't take you anywhere... even to a abstract. EBSCO isn't user friendly. Here are the citations:
  • Keller, J. (2017). The need for trusted data storage. Military & Aerospace Electronics, 28(12), 16.
  • Meng, X. (2018). A churn-aware durable data storage scheme in hybrid P2P networks. Journal Of Supercomputing, 74(1), 183-204. doi:10.1007/s11227-017-2125-4
  • Muthurajkumar, S., Vijayalakshmi, M., & Kannan, A. (2017). Secured Data Storage and Retrieval Algorithm Using Map Reduce Techniques and Chaining Encryption in Cloud Databases. Wireless Personal Communications, 96(4), 5621-5633. doi:10.1007/s11277-017-4437-3
Anyone who wants full text of the articles can ask me, but since I see that two have DOI, you may be able to resolve them in a different database. Please ping me or I won't know you need access! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted an external link for the other article. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to unifying data and information storage would be to have separate articles and categories for each, but I don't see this as very useful or workable. I'm not even convinced that separate articles and categories for data and information is useful. ghouston (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I toss a coin, and record the value as "heads", I've just used 5 bytes (typically 40 bits) of data to represent 1 bit of information. Hmm. ghouston (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps we store data, which represents some amount of information depending on how efficiently it's encoded (entropy). ghouston (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this would support the case for renaming it, since otherwise we need to put everything in the Universe under Category:Information storage. ghouston (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. After reviewing the "newer" posts I stand by my previous vote of support, though I find the name change to be rather unimportant in the long haul. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its clear that people have varied concepts of data vs information storage, likely based on their background. My recommendation is still oppose, as I think they are different concepts. But Marcocapelle make a good practical argument for support, hence a weak oppose. --Mark viking (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one way isas good as the other. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 1 May 2018 (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.
More