Category talk:Peninsulas of Australia

This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia

Peninsulas of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles

Geography

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

I do not qualify a park nor a point as a peninsula. And for Cape Grenville the text does not tell it is a peninsula. That's why I removed these articles from Category:Peninsulas of Australia. TopoChecker (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned user[reply]

I don't think many editors watchlist Category talk: pages, so we may end up as the only ones discussing this. You can look at categories in two ways, either as strict definitions or as aids to navigation ("what other things are like this?"). Categories are not part of the article body, so there are fewer restrictions on strict adherence to sources, except say in biographies where negative connotations become a concern. Any time you remove an article from a category, you need to examine both its usefulness as a definition and as a navigational aid.

On your first removal, I agree that the article on the park is not really a "peninsula" article, and it is included in other categories which will help readers to find the park article. OTOH, I'm not sure any particular harm was being done by the article staying in the category, but no big deal.

On the second, sure looks like a peninsula to me, or pretty close to it. We could likely search around for days for a source definitively saying "is a peninsula" or "definitely not a peninsula" but in this case I think the benefit as a navigational aid for a reader interested in finding similar landforms outweighs any potential harm through confusion of the reader. Removing the category took it out of any landform-type categories.

On the third, much the same as the second, just because the text doesn't definitely say that the Cape is a peninsula doesn't necessarily mean it has to be removed from the category. Again, what is the effect of the use of the category as a navigational aid? Is it more likely to confuse someone, or to help them find similar but not necessarily identical landforms? In this case, you moved it to the parent landform category, where it becomes sort of an orphan, i.e. not sub-categorized with all the other points / spits / capes / promontories / headlands that are not necessarily peninsulas but are "things that jut out into the water".

These are all matters of opinion, not things governed by some strict policy or other. I just think you need to consider how well category inclusion helps the reader to navigate through topic areas in addition to applying strict definitions of what "is" or "is not". Franamax (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]