Category talk:Transparent materials

message: If this category is not for all transparent materials, but only for those used in optics, the category name should be refined to Transparent optical materials.--Afluegel (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the creator of this category, I intended it to be for all transparent materials  without limitation to any particular field of application. The category was amended by another editor to be for transparent materials used in optical applications,  the main concern being the inclusion of the large number of transparent chemical compounds and biochemical substances. I agreed with this concern, and proposed to resolve it by amending the category to exclude such materials. The category is thus, transparent materials used in any field of application because of their transparency, so as to exclude the many materials which are transparent but which have no applications related to their transparency. - Neparis (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The category is also limited to materials that are transparent to visible light. This is different from :Category:Optical materials and its subcats because they include materials that are transparent to non-visible regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as infrared. - Neparis (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still not very happy about the category name because the words "Transparent materials" automatically suggest a very broad area, not only "applied solid materials transparent to visible light". "Transparent materials" should be a supercat, not a subcat just under optical materials. If the meaning is very limited it needs to be reflected accordingly in the category name, otherwise users will get confused.--Afluegel (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) (replying to this) You're right about subcats and supercats, and it is generally a good idea for category names to be as reasonably specific as possible. However, it needs some judgment, otherwise one ends up following the rule for the sake of the rule where it would be better to do whatever makes the most common sense in each particular case. Following on from this, I think there is a real danger of picking an overly long and pedantic name, which might appeal to specialists by being technically absolutely correct and informative, but which non-specialist lay-readers would mostly never think of or look for. I think Transparent materials is the simplest common-sense name. It's what your ordinary Joe or Joanna — the lay readers — would look for. Of course, it's certainly not 100% precise, but putting the detailed inclusion criteria on the category page resolves the uncertainty. Are there other existing categories that are easily confused by lay readers with Transparent materials? I don't think there are, and I don't see the harm in a category with a concise name that has a mostly common-sense meaning. Is there a big need to spell it all out pedantically by using a much longer, more abstruse name? If we were to pick a really long-winded name like Visible light transparent materials applications per your suggestion , I think it gets into the territory of names that don't make much sense to non-specialists, like Joe and Joanna: "What is 'visible light' anyway?" "What's 'materials applications'?" "Gee, wikipedia sure is real confusing, all I wanted is to look for transparent stuff", etc. - Neparis (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that Transparent materials implies a broad area, but I think the common-sense meaning which most people use excludes materials that are not transparent to visible light, but are transparent to non-visible light. Most lay people don't think of black plastic film, for example, as an example of Transparent materials. If the category were explicitly broadened to include all such materials, it will end up more confusing for the non-specialist. I'm open to persuasion that it might be a good idea though. Perhaps there could be parent and child categories: Transparent materials for the common-sense concept of materials transparent in visible light, and Transparent materials used in optics for the less obvious, more technical category that includes both visible and non-visible light transparency. - Neparis (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "Transparent materials" has a very broad meaning and it implies transparency to visible light, therefore, I sorted some other categories into it. For more specific applications a subcat could be created as you suggested, e.g., "Transparent materials used in optics". The long category names I suggested were too complicated.--Afluegel (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category name