Talk:Donek

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Talk:Donek

Comments

OCAT

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Would you be more specific about its overcategorization please? --Chapultepec (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The fact that the word "donek" happens to be a Turkish word or phrase is a non-defining or trivial characteristic concerning the breed of pigeons which is the main subject of this article.
The fact that the word "donek" happens to be a Turkish word or phrase also strikes me as being a rather arbitrary inclusion criterion considering that the article is concerning a breed of pigeons not the Turkish language.
I stand by my removal of this category from this article. Please do not re-add the category unless you can demonstrate a valid criteria for including this category.--Onorio (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I actually do not think so, if a word is of Turkish (or another language) origin, won't we be able to categorize it under the suitable category? Take coffee for example, it is of course an Arabic origined word, and we can naturally categorize it accordingly, although it does not define the main topic of the article.

My objection is that, items in all the related categories, namely "Fooish loanwords" and "Fooish words and phrases", do not define the article under which they take place, so they are all indirectly related, shall we regard all those categories trivial? The word coffee was only an example, there are thousands of items in the same situation. So the article donek should not be an exception for that. Furthermore I scanned WP:OCAT, but I could not find anything against the language categories. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I doubt you'll find anything specifically forbidding adding a language category to any article in the WP:OCAT article. But just because there's nothing specifically forbidding it doesn't make it any more appropriate in my opinion. I'll ask one of the other folks who regularly works on the pigeon articles to take a look at this discussion and share his opinion. If he agrees with you then you can feel free to change the article because if you both think it's appropriate then I'm wrong and I'll back off.--Onorio (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I just took a look and find that I agree with Onorio. It does look to be overcategorization to me. In fact the category could do with a trip to CfD. I just can't be bothered nominating it. Just leave this article with the pigeon breed cats please.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that we have any problems with the related category, it is just a linguistic category along with its 58 cognates. As for its taking place in the article, I must state that this is not a matter of pigeon breed articles only, this is in fact a general case. Although these categories do not directly define the article they categorize, they can easily take place in the related articles. Take tulip, it is a plant, but a related linguistic category is naturally given in the article, or coffee, a drink, but is also similary categorized; or gazelle, an animal, but its linguistic origin is also categorized. We can give thousands of articles to prove that it is quite possible. However, it seems to me that this debate will not give any fruitful conclusions. Therefore, even though I'm not still convinced, I abide by the majority's decision and close the discussion. Happy edits. --Chapultepec (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.