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.
Delete per nom; a catamaran is not defined by the linguistic origin of the word by which we call it - any more than Alexandria is defined by being named for Alexander the Great (a categorization scheme deleted long ago). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese category certainly contains many inappropriate articles (e.g. the Geta (footwear) article is about shoes, not linguistics). However, that category may well include some articles for which it is an appropriate category so purging, rather than straight deletion, is more appropriate in that case. Now that these categories have a notice it may be easier to keep them clean. The crux of this is that, for example, the article about apples belongs in the fruit category, not in the English words category. DexDor (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The samples that I checked did all deal with the etymology. As long as the articles deal with the linguistic origin of the subject, I see no objection to having categories of this type. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That an article mentions the etymology of one or more terms used to refer to the topic isn't a characteristic of the topic itself. Nor is this a permanent characteristic of the article (I've removed uncited etymology from many articles and replaced it by a link to the Wiktionary entry). DexDor (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article mentioning etymology does not make it about the word. The nomination is built on the proper understanding of the very narrow way we use such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category is supposed to be for articles about Tamil words themselves. Not articles about things where their name happen to be derived from the Tamil language, e.g. Catamaran, Curry etc. —dainomite19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Important observation: DexDor made a highly interesting remark: what is the purpose of this whole tree actually - and especially so for the non-English languages? When I look at my own native language, almost none of the listed articles is about the word itself, and the same applies to categories of other languages that I know quite a bit, except for the English category of course. The non-English-language categories in this tree just show all articles of which the title's keyword is a word in the respective language. I wouldn't consider this meaningless though, it's just different than (apparently) intended. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2014 (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:Taxa with documented paleopathologies[edit]
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:delete as non-defining. There is scope for an interesting article of tabulated list instead. – FayenaticLondon14:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize species (whether extinct or not) by what illnesses etc they suffer(red) from (e.g. there is no "Animals that get fleas" category). The use of "documented" in a category name is also unusual. DexDor (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Comparing a category like "Taxa with documented paleopathologies" to something like "Animals that get fleas" is very misleading for several reasons. Firstly, there are many, many, animals that get fleas so this category is trivial. However, since the vast majority of animals and maybe even the majority species don't make it into the fossil record, a specimen preserved with evidence of injury or disease is very noteworthy. Also, since a flea is just one parasite, that category implies a proliferation of other trivial categories, while the paleopathology categories are more general and substantial. Thirdly, we can observe modern "animals that get fleas" directly, so the fact that they get fleas doesn't necessarily provide much information about them to biologists. However, with fossils, that evidence of injury or disease might be one of the few sources of information we have about that animal, so is much more noteworthy. Relatedly, fossils are generally thought of as dead animals, yet paleopathologies record evidence of the physiology and behavior the animal exhibited while it was alive. This adds greatly to their scientific significance. Also, I noticed that none of the other contributors to Wikiproject Paleontology have objected to these categories even when I put them in some of the highest profile articles we have. If these articles aren't good for our coverage of paleontology, surely they would have been the first to complain, right? As for the name, if we keep these categories I'm open for suggestions. I used the term "documented" because it's likely that there are fossils out there with paleopathologies that haven't yet been described for the scientific literature and the articles are only going to be referencing those that have. If you have a suggestion for something that get's the point across but isn't as clunky, that would be awesome. Abyssal (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your third point ("we can observe ... directly") - We normally categorize species by the characteristics of the species, not by how we (modern humans) know what those characteristics are. For example, We may know that an animal is a carnivore from observing it feeding, from fossil teeth, from dissecting its stomach etc, but we place it in Category:Carnivorous animals regardless of how we know it has that characteristic. That principle applies much more widely in wp categorization - e.g. we don't divide Category:Murderers by whether the person admitted guilt, it was proved by scientific evidence, there were witnesses etc.
If we tried generally to divide categorization characteristics into those things we can observe directly and those things we can't then we would get into a big mess in other areas of science. For example, humans can observe the planet Venus with our eyes, but need a telescope to observe Neptune and may need other methods to "see" some extrasolar planets. How would you define "observe directly" ?
The Tyrannosaurus article is in this category - presumably on the basis that "A 2009 study showed that holes in the skulls of several specimens that were previously explained by intraspecific attacks might have been caused by Trichomonas-like parasites that commonly infect avians." (one sentence in an article that runs to many pages). That may be a fact sufficiently noteworthy to be in the article, but doesn't look like a WP:DEFINING characteristic - more a case of WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I said observe directly, I meant that researchers can study a live animal. However, when all you have of an animal are its remains, the characteristics of those remains are the defining traits of the taxon, since they are all you know about it. I really think you are underestimating the importance of that kind of thing. Categorizing modern animals identically to fossil animals is a bit of a category error, in my opinion. Abyssal (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article like Tyrannosaurus is about a species/genus (that happens to be extinct), not about fossils (although, of course, where fossils are the only/main evidence of a species they should be mentioned in the article). Characteristics of remains would be things like what material a fossil is made of (e.g. calcite). A more recently extinct animal (e.g. DodoorThylacine) may have evidence from a wider variety of sources (e.g. 17th century paintings), but we categorize it based on the characteristics of the animal (e.g. being a marsupial, carnivore, extinct), not on characteristics of the evidence for it. DexDor (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, paleopathology as defined here is quite vague (e.g. anything from a broken bone to a tumor) and thus their interpretation may be susceptible to WP:ORorWP:SYN (see Grallator#Paleopathology for an equivocal example of a "pathology"). The article paleopathology strictly details with diseases, while many of the dinosaur examples represent predation attempts and/or normal injuries, and so simply labeling an injury a "paleopathology" may be incorrect or imprecise. Secondly, a subset of pathological fossils of a taxon does not constitute a WP:DEFINING trait unless the article is about a specimen(s) rather than a taxon. Thirdly, I notice that not all articles currently categorized have evidence of any pathology: for instance in Borealosuchus, thus the categorization is presumably based on either uncited research, original research, or a mistake. I do see the importance in recognizing legitimate pathologies in long extinct organisms, as they give insight to paleobiology, but a categorization is not the best way to do it. A much better way is in article format, as exemplified by Theropod paleopathology. I would not recommend a simple list, however (e.g. "List of taxa with paleopathologies"), as the vague inclusion criteria and lack of sourcing requirements for lists may create the same problems we're discussing here. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it sounds like you're objecting to the scientific definition of the word paleopathology itself. Injuries, tumors, diseases etc are used for inclusion in the paleopathology category because that's what the word means. The inclusion criteria aren't vague; the term is just very general. The main article's fixation on disease to the exclusion of other types of paleopathology is a problem. Also, I actually do have a source for the Borealosuchus paleopathology (Mesozoic Vertebrate Life), I just didn't realize the information wasn't there prior to categorization. How about replacing the category with a more complex table-based list with headings like "Taxon|Documented pathologies|Notes". Abyssal (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After some more reading, it appears "paleopathology" is used in slightly different contexts depending on author or association (e.g. vertebrate paleontologists vs forensic anthropologists), with some stressing diseases more than injuries. But, while potentially vague by definition, its use as category may invoke creative interpretation, e.g. under some theories, Homo floresiensis is merely a pathologic population of ancient humans, and thus its inclusion under the category would depend on certain views, and the above-mentioned Grallator toe highlights the equivocal nature of the category. An ambiguous or open-to-interpretation category is not ideal. The guidelines in WP:DEFINING and Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles still stand, as a few specimens do not represent defining traits of a taxa, and pathologies may well be trivial depending on their nature or frequency. A table-based list of the sort you mentioned would be welcome and useful, especially if it was well-structured (e.g. by taxon and/or condition) and of course suitably referenced. An article format might be more ideal however, to provide room for alternate explanations in the case of equivocal or controversial abnormalities, or where there are simply multiple hypotheses for the cause. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: We normally categorize articles by their topic, not by the form of their name. This category currently contains just a list article that is in plenty of other categories. DexDor (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Name" is undefined. Common name? Scientific name? Names of individual animals (e.g. Seabiscuit)? If common name is to be assumed, this category is rendered extraneous and unwaranted, as Category:Mammals by common name contains mostly placentals. There is little benefit to finely sorting pages into a multitude of small categories. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2014 (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:World War II Chinese fighter aircraft[edit]
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.
Should this be a category for aircraft used in that conflict (encyclopedic value, several members, may need renaming) or by manufacture (only one entry)? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep but purge - nearly all of the Category by user and by conflict have been deleted in the past, this is just one of the odd few remaining. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Changed per the reasoned argument from The Bushranger. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally in wp, we don't categorize mass-produced items by how they have been used. So, for example Boeing 747 isn't categorized as a British Airways aircraft and Ford Transit isn't categorized as a vehicle used in The Troubles. If we did categorize by usage then articles like AK-47 and CH-47 could be in dozens of categories and articles like bayonet and towel (equipment used by sunbathers, equipment used by swimmers, equipment used in hospitals...) could be in hundreds. Lists may be appropriate in some cases. Category:Military aircraft of World War II etc are (currently) an exception to this general rule. We previously deleted many equipment-by-conflict categories (example CFD). DexDor (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge to contain only the Chinese-manufatured type per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption. These categories are, by long-standing and firm consensus on both the aviation and military-history sides, for aircraft built in the countries in question; we do not categorise weapons by operator (yes, there's more than a few cases of that around, but this is bad categorisation and needs to be phased out) - the top-level Category:Weapons by country in fact states "In general, weapons should be listed under the nation who led the development of the project, even if use and production may have spread.". That said, this is part of the established Category:Military aircraft of World War II > Category:World War II fighter aircraft tree; the whole tree may or may not be appropriate (I lean towards "not", to be honest), but we don't need to prune one appropriate-indidually-if-the-whole-tree-is branch at a time. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:05, 12 April 2014 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Split. I made the original category in error - it is currently too targeted a category, only comprising 10 pages at the most. This split will allow many more pages to be included in each one (examples at Template:Orthopaedic_Eponyms). Mschamberlain (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles about things (including medical conditions) should be categorized by the characteristics of the thing, not by characteristics of words that refer to that thing. Categorize by what the thing is, not by characteristics of the name that happens to have been chosen for the article title on the English wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2014 (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.
