Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 11

799:

commonly used in the botanical sciences for large groups of Asteraceae. Subfamilies are also used, but the taxonomy at the subfamily level is in such flux right now that they can't be used. However, this means we will have some categories with thousands of genera and some with one--there are at least two monotypic tribes in the Asteraceae. For stubs, we upmerge, but for categorization, we don't, as all tribes of Asteraceae are subcategories of the family Asteraceae. In other Angiosperm families, the genera may be categorized according to genera, in others there is no subcategorization lower than family level. You probably have to take it up with your god if you disagree with it, or be willing to resort the entire taxonomy of living things. Currently there are thousands of scientists working on it, and I doubt Knowledge will beat them to it.

1282:

groups as categories--it makes me cringe. A lot of the research that points to the new changes is simply too new, and only supported by itself within the literature--and, we've too much work to do on what we have so far, and there still is disagreement. So, this is an issue that should be resolved within the mammals working group, not on a CfD, namely should you eliminate parphyletic groups as categories? Doesn't Knowledge still use "reptiles" as a category? Even reptiles including, sorry to say, the dinosaurs? A little itty bitty poorly named rat group can't be all that bad, can it? Still, I think this needs to be taken up with the people working with the rodents, not an outside CfD.

809:, a larger category. And, if it is monotypic, it's not Knowledge's fault, but mother natures for not putting things nicely only in categories of 10, or whatever discrete number would be appropriate. It is, however, imo, inappropriate to delete one single category of a taxonomic scheme, without researching and coming up with a better and more appropriate way to do it for all of, at least the class in the case of mammals. This means refiguring the 35 items in the category mammals, the 16 subcategories of rodents, and all of their contents, the hundreds of muroid rodents, and the five other subcategories of the Spalacidae. 6579:, I don't think this a defining characteristic, but a list would seem to satisfy DGG's points about the probable utility of this information. Ultimately, this is information about the book more than it is information about the subject topic. Note that we aren't classifying anything the way the book does with this category; we're merely categorizing everything in the book as being in the book, which somewhat, though not entirely, weakens DGG's argument. A list, however, could be grouped in all sorts of ways, and could easily end up influencing how we categorize the topics. 864:

10-50, and it's absurd to decide to branch based on taxonomies that are phylogenetic, then accord priority to raw numbers of organisms. If mammals wants to group by numbers, regardless of phylogenetic relationships, they'll simply have to redo the whole thing in the near future, when the literature doesn't match any categories, and the categories don't make sense, and people start wondering how the blazes Knowledge came up with such a silly, and

3507:- each category listed is limited to one or more of the following subcategories: albums; members; songs along with the article for the artist and sometimes a discography article (a couple contain the articles for the band members because they haven't been sorted into a members category yet or they're in both). Per precedent these are overcategorization. 5594:" category, because most of these physicians were involved with the same programs in Cincinnati. (A "Physicians with the University of Cincinnati" category would be far too specific, but "Physicians from Cincinnati" has just enough generality to include a decent number of articles.) Another category that may seem superfluous at first glance is 4766:: If Knowledge recognizes Raelism as a religion then it is simply discriminatory not to allow a category for its "bishops" when those of larger and more recognizable religions are so allowed. Notability applies to the entries themselves and not to this category since, I will repeat, it is well established in type amongst religions in general. 4736:. I think a broader category, like "Raëlian clergy" might be more appropriate until that category gets large enough to justify subcategorization by church rank. On the gripping hand, nom raises issues of inappropriate promotion, which I haven't had time to investigate, so I don't have a final opinion on this category yet. 3635:, they do have a chance of expansion if left be. If deleted they will never be added to. In time they will become a more valuable source of articles. And if a band is notable enough to have a number of articles written concerning albums, singles, members, etc why then shouldn't it have its own category? -- 3571:

be deleted), the claim that these are "valuable for navigation" is pretty obviously hyperbole, and has been rejected at dozens and dozens of previous debates and at deletion review. No one is questioning the good faith of the users who created these (we don't even question the good faith of the user

2532:

Interesting attempt - but I suspect it'd likely soon get tied up in knots. Even though my original background is civ. eng, and I like to see its output getting recognition, its only part of the story. For example, the trading & settlement systems of capital markets are treated as key piece of the

1585:

variation on performer by performance; I also question whether categories of people by employer are defining generally. Most people go through several different employers, and several large employers have employed many people notable enough to have bio's here: take McDonald's, AT&T, or some major

593:

make it seem likely that consensus on Knowledge policy would be that this category does not merit differentiation by gender because the employment of women as television personalities is not inherently notable in the same way that the employment of women in some other professions has been. Therefore,

6145:

If they are meant to have user pages in them, I think UCFD is the place. If it's meant to have mainspace articles (people notable for translating Albanian into English, or below vice versa seems unlikely, but I have been wrong before), we can continue it here. I'll let you (and any other passers by)

1281:

Well, without knowing which part, it's still not obvious that it's not a clade. But I only say this because of the information you gave me, not because I want to know. Your assertion is sufficient in this case. In botany, due to the rapidly changing nature of the taxonomy, we do have paraphyletic

850:

actually able to see that this is a subcategory of a larger category. That is actually a good thing, since now we are able to put the single article into the mother category. And, this is one step to a more appropriate scheme for muroid rodents, which will consist only of categories for families and

829:

Major groups should be given their own categories. When possible, these should use the common name in the plural. In general, only articles about major subgroups should be added, and more specific articles should be included in subcategories. However, when there are only a few articles about members

5546:

To me, "Roman Catholic bishop", "quarterback", and "male model" are not professions in a general sense, whereas "clergy", "professional athlete", and "model" are. So I figure it's more of a scope issue: there's nothing inherently wrong with a category that intersects a location and a profession, as

1599:

we are discussing these cats--if there are others that would inevitably produce BLP issues we can discuss them when they appear. Actually, I do not see the point about BLP. any issues should be resolved at the article level--whether someone did or did not contribute to a particular periodical is a

1586:

retailers for example. Furthermore, here it's not clear whether these people were employed at the publication at issue or were just published there (contributors), so we have additional OR & V issues, and eventually when cats for the less esteemed publications we'll have inevitable BLP issues.

1565:

these publications are so important that people do become known for having written for them, even as students. Most magazine writers write primarily for a few particular publications; those who have written one or two article,s though in may be mentioned in their bios, should simply not be included

863:

Well, it depends upon what you consider major. I might consider, for example, an organism that has an important evolutionary history and, say, basal relationships with other extant members at the same rank, a major group. The thing is, evolutionary history doesn't occur in neat little packages of

5996:

Ambiguous name. The category actually appears to be created to contain reservoirs. Given that, the category is badly named at best. Since the common element here is that the reservoirs are somehow associated with the USACE, it is probably over classification. If kept, needs a rename, probably to

5524:

examples "Roman Catholic Bishops from Ohio, Quarterbacks from Louisiana, Male models from Dallas" are against WP guidelines, this subcat seems to fall pretty squarely in the same spot. Don't get me wrong, I can see how this subcat would be useful for someone interested in reading about p's from C,

881:

should be placed in a category for the subfamily Rhizomyinae, which consists of two Recent genera with four species and of two or three fossil genera. If all taxa will be covered, the category will contain about 20 articles, while still containing not the smallest amount of original research. Note

5503:. Now these people will just go right back to "People from Cincinnati", despite the fact they are all physicians from Cincinnati. But for some reason, "people from Cincinnati" is viewed as being more helpful to readers? That is funny and really doesn't make an ounce of sense. I'll do you a favor: 3521:

the ones that contain non-duplicate band member entries, per ample precedent and the inarguable redundancy and lack of utility of these vanity categories. (Not that vanity may not be justified in a few of these cases, but just saying....) The ones that contain band members need to be cleaned up

1291:

That it is paraphyletic is one thing, that it is not used as a taxon (it consists of three subfamilies), is the other thing, and perhaps it is more important. As you say, there are also still categories for reptiles. However, Reptilia is currently still used as a taxon, while "New World rats and

5731:

As I mentioned in a similar cfd, my guess is that this is part of a broader attempt to divide People from Cincinnati by occupation. And while I don't have a problem with the general idea of subdividing locations-by-occupation, I'm not sure this particular scheme was set up very well. I'd much

5653:

I will consider nominating Jurists from Cincinnati after we dispose of this one. But that might be more supportable because it has several dozen entries; this had three when I nominated it and eight now.--and I understand categories of lawyers by state, which is jurisdictionally relevant) Many

2075:

settlement was a kind of hybrid employed because there are legal/definitional differences among jurisdictions about what is a town or a city. I will not presuppose that these differences matter much in a fictional realm: whether Smallville or Springfield is incorporated, a charter city, a town,

798:

Yes, in general the categories are parts of larger schemes based upon categorizing taxa on Wikipeida, according to established taxonomies. This means that categories have varying quantities of content. For example, the Asteraceae will be categorized according to tribes, the taxonomical level

915:

article. I don't make categories for genera, since they usually don't contain more than a dozen entries (at least in my case). Incidentally, I also have categories with redirects for common names (many of them disambiguation pages), as well as categories with redirects for taxonomic synonyms.

7147:, normally being small, with no potential for growth is a valid reason for deletion, but we deliberately make exceptions for categories which are part of a broader scheme, as this seems to be. Kudos to 128.112.66.8 for managing to be both humorous and clear in his nomination, though. :) 5490:

Organization is better than chaos. Give the category a chance to populate. We can have People from Cincinnati, but for some reason some professions you can break the category down by and others are considered overcategorization. How silly is that? It is a constant guessing game that makes

2013:

ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS DISCUSSION ARE ALL SUB-SUB-CATEGORIES OF THE ABOVE. THERE ARE TOO MANT CATEGORIES HERE TO PUT DOWN SO I AM LEAVING THE SUB-SUBS OUT AS WELL. ANYONE PLEASE INCLUDE THEM, OR MOVE THIS ENTRY TO A SEPARATE PAGE AS IT WILL BE TOO BIG TO FIT THEM ALL HERE IN THIS LOG.

5732:

rather have this be discussed as part of a broader initiative to look at whether or not to subdivide really large city biography categories by occupation. Such a broader scheme might be useful, but it should be done in a consistent manner and not just ad hoc for Cincinnati.

1272:(voles), and the abovementioned Sigmodontinae, Neotominae, and Tylomyinae; the interrelationships among these subfamilies are largely unresolved. So, this is a category for an outdated taxon which may very well not be monophyletic and is not used in current taxonomy. 5547:

long as the profession is general enough and (see my Keep comment below) there's some reason that the location has so many notable people in that line of work. Also, clergy are typically defined by the (arch)diocese, not state, that they reside in. –

5448:, cluttertastic. Any word on how many articles this could conceivably be the primary category for? Presumably most entries would be primarily notable for something other than being a physician, or something more specific within the field of medicine. 6559:

and use for similar cases , such as the ones mentioned. Where there are reference standard classifications we should use them as a list of topics. there won't be all the many, and it will improve our own less sophisticated classification efforts.

2533:

Infrastructure of some cities & industries when it comes to anti-terrorist planning!! From a strategic perspective capacity-building features highly (e.g. education, democratic systems etc). If this was to be anything other than a jumble of

5586:. The page on Overcategorization is a guideline, and while it's useful, I think this particular category is also useful. (I don't think that's the case with just any city that has a university or children's hospital.) Coincidentally, there's a 5152:

The Raëlian movement assembles a mere 60000 members. To create a category on which of those are singers is preposterous, not only because of the few adherants to the group, but also the idea of categorizing someone as a "Raëlian singer".

5582:. For the most part, the subjects in this category are notable not because they just happen to be physicians living in Cincinnati, but because they made notable contributions to medicine while practicing or researching in Cincinnati 775:

has been creating hundreds of these ... While I don't care for its tendency to create single item categories, it is certainly true that all of these are part of an established hierarchy. I think the best thing would be to ask the

1333:. Although I think the best data suggest that this may be a monophyletic group (Steppan et al., 2004), these data are very weak, there is no associated taxonomic level, and the group is big enough to require splitting anyway. -- 2385:

is anything under the sun, and doesn't apply to any sort of logic, apparently. Is it civil or military? Or is it the inner structure of a society, organization, or system, as per another dictionary definition? Confused!

4237:, as the number of members is so small that a single category may suffice to hold all their clergy. (Assuming the religion is notable enough for inclusion in Knowledge at all, an issue I haven't investigated.) 5491:

organization rather impossible. Diez makes a valid point, though everyone there is a physician and that is in fact their claim to fame. I was only going to become more specific if there were enough articles to

4258:

is structured since "national guides" are religious figures. If we can categorize occupations that that are related to other religions then we can classify Raelian occupations as well. Let's not discriminate

2380:

cat, which is a random gathering of well, buildings, whether planned, collapsed or standing!! Its a far leap of the imagination to categorise all of these items within with any sort of infrastructure. Whereas

2546:

Before we close this out, please can someone try to get a focussed look on what this cat is all about & what purpose it is supposed to fulfil, and create a description for the page. The disambig page for

2334:. From my perspective both cats are mislabelled. 'Infrastructure' is a term with lots of meaning depending on where you come from. This looks like a totally US perspective on a global topic, and I note that ' 1222:"New World rats and mice" is not a taxon in any sense; it consists of three subfamilies which may or may not form a clade. Its contents should be distributed among new categories for these three subfamilies: 757:: this looks like it might be a part of a broader scheme, which would override the "small with no potential for growth" concerns. Perhaps a specialist or a member of an appropriate Wikiproject can comment. 2317:

without subcategories for the specific fields is nothing more then a random collection of articles linked by a like name. So maybe the better approach is to have sub categories for the various fields.

1292:

mice" is not much more than a near-random grouping of subfamilies based on geography and taxonomic history. As far as I can see, this is the only case of a category for an informal grouping except for

2537:

it would need to be properly pulled in from referenceable sources, which would be better done through a list, or series of lists, depending on the purpose of the 'infrastructure' in question.

2313:. I'm inclined to oppose this. Infrastructure, even as defined in the article ('The term has diverse meanings in different fields') is different for the various fields. So a category like 5507:

has numerous similar entiries which will also be deleted with this same rationale. Please nominate them also so I know whether to bother continuing this practice or not. Such a headache. (

3681:

be created. As for your last point—I don't understand that at all. Is a category supposed to be some sort of prize that you win for being especially notable? I don't see how that makes

2561:

list of critical infrastructure (which in 2007 notes 2,100 types of facility, incl. dams, power plants) or the 2006 one (that included hot dog stands amongst its notable 200,000 assets.)

2338:' within one of the cats suggests that this was a term invented by a US president, and not by any civil engineer, so maybe that's why it make no sense to me. (However, I note that under 4229:. This appears to be a category for religious leaders, despite the somewhat confusing name. As such, it certainly has the potential to be a valid category. Intersection by religion 2032:"Settlement" just doesn't mean the same thing. Nominator really hasn't given rationale for the rename either, which might be grounds for speedy close as it's an incomplete nomination. 5212: 5207: 5202: 5187: 4955: 4950: 4945: 4930: 4483: 4478: 4468: 4463: 4458: 5197: 4940: 4750:

In general we allow small categories when they are part of an established hierarchy. Unlike the other recent Raëlian categories, I see this one is as a defining characteristic. --

4473: 4448: 4443: 4024: 42: 37: 2523:

This is not intended to be complete, but starting to fill in a structure that would improve the current haphazard arrangement. Don't know if you need to split civil and military.

7118:

So, apparently Morocco only participated in the contest once, in 1980. Even with little growth potential, I think it's probably worth keeping this cat, because as of right now,

6540: 5257: 5252: 5247: 5242: 5237: 5232: 5227: 5222: 5217: 5192: 5000: 4995: 4990: 4985: 4980: 4975: 4970: 4965: 4960: 4935: 4019: 4014: 590: 586: 429: 425: 286: 282: 129: 125: 5844: 5599: 5262: 5005: 582: 4453: 5641:

Excessively detailed. If these people are notable, they are notable for their overall contribution to medicine, not for having been born in, or having worked in Cincinnati.

5525:

but you would have to get consensus for a change to the guideline, rather than lament the difficulties of categorizing people from Cincinatti, to make your argument stick.

3573: 5590:

that I find to be a much better example of Overcategorization, because two physician-Congressmen probably don't have much in common. In a way, this is something of an "

5654:

cities have more than 3 major hospitals-- and I think we should be very slow to encourage the multiplication of such categories without a more general discussion.

6521:

A category to list topics in a book. If we start creating categories by topics covered in each thick book on Earth, this will be disaster of overcategorization. `'

5575: 6743:

Empty category. Also a bit of overcategorization -- any "song" that Engvall has charted with was his spoken word comedy spliced with another artist's singing.

830:

of the group, they can all go directly into the main category. Use your judgement on when to split, aiming for an approximate category size of 10-50 articles.

6469: 6501: 4255: 3665:

strong objections). If a new article is created, it is a trivial matter to (re)create the eponymous category. But experience shows us that this almost

3619:, these categories just aren't used very widely, have no chance of expansion, and are done better with links in templates on the relevant articles. -- 3834: 1413: 6493: 6210: 5591: 5399: 2010:

Also after looking at this, i am unsure whether to also include renaming Discworld, DC Comics, Middle-earth, Star Wars and Dungeons & Dragons.

570: 547: 5678:, there are roughly a dozen. I just mentioned the ones that (as far as I can tell) are known for their medical breakthroughs or unique programs. – 1754:- unnecessary categorization for a TV show. Everything in it except the show's article is for a person associated with the show, which is improper 5603: 4778:- per PelleSmith. I note that there are 3 entries in this category - a bare minimum in my view, but enough to retain, unlike the other subcats of 21: 2135:

I'm not really, on grounds of it being overly long. Is there really a significant difference between a "town" and a "village" in most countries?

6484: 6372: 5998: 2581:— "Physical infrastructure" is pretty much redundant, and is less intuitive for people trying to add novel articles to relevant categories. -- 1991: 1538: 2000: 1483: 6544: 6536: 7119: 2097: 1448: 1404: 1995: 2355:. Power distribution is infrastructure and was not included in either of these categories. I'm still leaning to better divisions under 2004: 693:, and while there doesn't seem to be a consensus of what to do with this, there appears to be a consensus to do something besides "keep". 6984:

I believe that this would qualify for speedy renaming, as a simple matter of capitalization. I have nominated it for a speedy rename.

5390: 3830: 3775: 2447: 1305:

Overall, I tend to agree with you, the paraphyletic groupings are as problematic and difficult to use on Knowledge as in the sciences.

818:

There is no "wikirodents", as far as I can see, and WikiProject Mammals doesn't say anything about categorization. However, let me cite

113: 90: 17: 5587: 2376:

I've taken another look and see what you mean - its Physical Infrastructure that's mainly water engineering, with the exception of the

7109: 2452: 2335: 1865: 1330: 940: 819: 690: 566: 543: 4706:

Rule? Try common sense - an organization of 60000 people could possibly only contain a certain amount of otherwise notable bishops.

3369: 2461: 2405: 2377: 2092:, to match the system used for real places, and also since cities should naturally have precedence over towns. As to changing it to 1946: 1910: 2466: 1982: 1973: 1874: 1052:. There is currently only one article, and "rat" is a vaguely defined word that in my opinion should be avoided in categorization. 1964: 1955: 1919: 1901: 1892: 1883: 6363: 6340: 4659: 2420: 1937: 1928: 1869: 1474: 1103: 1049: 782:

people what they want to do, and update the program accordingly. It just doesn't make sense to deal with them one at a time. --

3334: 2089: 5579: 5504: 5496: 2558: 1950: 1914: 1439: 109: 86: 6359: 6336: 4161: 3342: 1986: 1977: 1878: 1856: 7066: 1968: 1959: 1923: 1905: 1896: 1887: 409: 386: 4279:(which I have now nominated for deletion on another page of CFD), this is both too narrow and simply unnecessary, since the 2488: 1941: 1932: 1421: 5407: 4153: 3325: 1194: 7074: 6262:

This category uses the incorrect ISO 639 code for the Albanian language. I've already boldly created the proper category (

6104:

This category uses the incorrect ISO 639 code for the Albanian language. I've already boldly created the proper category (

5611: 5607: 1860: 1826: 998:. You are free to discuss removing the cat at the article in question since consensus was disputed regarding the upmerge. 7057: 5615: 5473: 4205: 3360: 2415: 2410: 2263: 5574:

Cincinnati has been fairly prominent in the medical field, with the University of Cincinnati (University Hospital) and

4868: 3867:: consistency is almost always a good thing when it comes to categories, and I see no reason to be inconsistent here. 3801: 1491: 1202: 7172: 7156: 7139: 7050: 6993: 6977: 6942: 6885: 6866: 6824: 6808: 6750: 6715: 6699: 6640: 6608: 6588: 6571: 6551: 6525: 6477: 6417: 6405: 6393: 6379: 6350: 6285: 6270: 6218: 6154: 6140: 6127: 6112: 6105: 6076: 6060: 6005: 5952: 5897: 5885: 5873: 5854: 5799: 5736: 5723: 5711: 5693: 5665: 5645: 5633: 5595: 5562: 5541: 5511: 5482: 5464: 5438: 5383: 5322: 5309: 5297: 5281: 5182: 5162: 5108: 5049: 5036: 5024: 4925: 4905: 4860: 4844: 4786: 4770: 4756: 4745: 4715: 4700: 4684: 4669: 4647: 4586: 4527: 4514: 4502: 4438: 4418: 4357: 4299: 4263: 4246: 4214: 4194: 4144: 4137: 4079: 4057: 4043: 4009: 3987: 3958: 3934: 3876: 3859: 3845: 3785: 3718: 3669:

happens (and if that changes, consensus on these categories will likely change in short order), so it's silly to keep

3640: 3627: 3611: 3597: 3562: 3548: 3535: 3511: 2758: 2700: 2649: 2589: 2565: 2541: 2527: 2390: 2363: 2346: 2322: 2301: 2297: 2276: 2225: 2216: 2159: 2130: 2121: 2112: 2080: 2067: 2049: 2036: 2023: 1817: 1762: 1707: 1647: 1611: 1590: 1577: 1557: 1545: 1527: 1456: 1397: 1337: 1309: 1300: 1286: 1276: 1251: 1242: 1185: 1178: 1112: 1090: 1077: 1056: 1004: 947: 920: 894: 872: 855: 841: 813: 788: 766: 747: 699: 640: 628: 616: 602: 557: 492: 478: 466: 454: 440: 400: 335: 323: 311: 297: 257: 192: 178: 166: 154: 140: 100: 6234: 6108:) with the appropriate template to prevent subpage issues. Just making sure there are no unforeseen objections. --- 5843:

This show has a navigation template, so the category is unnecessary. Re-creation of category following deletion, see

4779: 4276: 4182: 3950: 2432: 6266:) with the appropriate template to prevent subpage issues. Just making sure there are no unforeseen objections. --- 1830: 266: 243: 6955: 6263: 5851: 5132: 5124: 4610: 4602: 3541: 3054: 3019: 2984: 2844: 2774: 2493: 2483: 2437: 4381: 4373: 3809: 3792: 3771: 3743: 3377: 3159: 3124: 7187: 7127: 7123: 7032: 7008: 6924: 6900: 6815: 6787: 6763: 6706: 6679: 6655: 6456: 6432: 6324: 6300: 6197: 6173: 6067: 6042: 6018: 5936: 5912: 5775: 5751: 5688: 5628: 5557: 5362: 5338: 5089: 5065: 4851: 4825: 4801: 4567: 4543: 4406: 4338: 4314: 4118: 4094: 3915: 3891: 3759: 3733: 2914: 2739: 2715: 2665: 2628: 2604: 2200: 2176: 2042: 1801: 1777: 1686: 1662: 1376: 1352: 1151: 1127: 986: 962: 679: 655: 531: 507: 374: 350: 231: 207: 74: 7186: