Category talk:Components

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Create subcategories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mathematical components 

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay, I'll have a go. --RichardVeryard (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No article for [[Component]] - just a disambiguation page - the category needs a description outlining what goes in it