Category talk:Components

Software Components

I have moved software-related articles from this category to the Category:Software components subcategory. --RichardVeryard 12:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create subcategories

I can't see the point of mixing abstract components of statistics and topology with physical commodities such as automobile parts. I think it is useful to have specific subcategories, but I am not sure whether anything would remain in the parent category. I think the recent decision NOT to delete Category:Systems creates a precedent - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:Systems --RichardVeryard 09:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC) updated --RichardVeryard 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even worth having a master category for "Components" at all, given that there's little or no connection between the different meanings of the word? 216.59.228.3 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we are going to keep Category:Systems (which was vulnerable to exactly the same argument) then we should keep this category as well. --RichardVeryard 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I thought this argument was an instance of WP:WAX, but after looking at Category:Systems I would say it isn't. It's a bad analogy. It makes sense to study all kinds of complex systems and examine common traits. It makes a lot less sense to study "components" in diverse fields per se (independent of surrounding systems), and I am not aware that anyone does it. I think this category should be deleted. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above logic of User:Hans Adler. "Systems" is a more circumscribed term than is "components". The Category:Components description leads to a disambiguation page. In other words, there is no category description or inclusion criteria. "Components" is so vague as to be meaningless. My ego is a component of my personality. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Architectural elements

I removed Category:Architectural elements from this category. According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/components, component means element, so using this category is redundant and useless for Architectural elements. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your reasoning. It is precisely because "element" means roughly the same as "component" that the architectural elements category was considered to be a subcategory of component. --RichardVeryard (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a subcategory of component. It is an informal synonym of component in the dictionary. However, in architecture the word "component" is not used for element. "Component" has no special meaning or use in architecture. To put Category:Architectural elements in the Category:Components just adds an extra category for no reason or purpose.

The general rule is to use the least number of categories necessary and make the categories as specific as possible. There is a tendency to layer on the categories which is discouraged, like using Category:Sports, Category:Football, Category:American football etc. for Category:New York Giants. The redundant categories should be removed. If you look under Category:New York Giants, you will not see those general, super categories there. Only the categories specific to that team are used. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical components

The subcategory Mathematical components is being deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 24#Category:Mathematical components. The majority of participants in this discussion wanted to distinguish between "real" components (such as automobile or software components) and more abstract things that merely have the word "component" somewhere in the name. Therefore the component category and its subcategories should be reserved for the "real" components only. --RichardVeryard (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No article for Component - just a disambiguation page - the category needs a description outlining what goes in it

This category needs a description for what goes into this category. It has none. Categories are supposed to have criteria delineating what goes into the category. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll have a go. --RichardVeryard (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally there is an article tied to the category, as Category:Elements of crime. Or look at Category:Sports and see how it distinguishes it from Category:Games (which is not included in the category) and references the article Sports. It also defines specifically what should go into the category. Hope this helps! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]