Category talk:Multiplane aircraft

Subcategories

Several categories for higher numbers of wing planes have been created - Category:Quintuplanes, Category:Sextuplanes, Category:Heptaplanes. These have only one or two entries because such planes are so rare. There are no corresponding articles for these categories. My view is that these categories are utterly trivial and the aircraft should all be categorised in Category:multiplane aircraft. Category:Quadruplanes has a handful of entries but, given that there are so few multiplanes at all, I can't see any real justification for that category either. Does anybody have any evidence to the contrary? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we do decide to keep Category:Quadruplanes, WP:SUBCAT observes that, "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing - see below)." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Category:Quadruplanes is just such a non-diffusing category and therefore, for example, both it and the present Category should be placed in Category:Wing configurations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the exemption to WP:SMALLCAT, small or even single-entry categories are entirely acceptable if they are part of a category tree. The category tree here is:

Category:Wing configurations
- Category:Monoplanes
- Category:Multiplane aircraft

Therefore these are not "utterly trivial" (which is, in and of itself, a bit of a value judgement) but rather serve the reader by showing, in the category tree, the number of wings involved. Therefore, this is a full category tree, and should remain as such. (And if it's still believed it shouldn't, then that needs to be discussed through a full nomination at WP:CFD.)

As for the supercategorisation, these are, in fact, diffusing categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My initial opinion is - given their relative low numbers - lump anything over three (ie quadruplanes and more) in a single category. That said, a list of multiplane aircraft covering the quadruplanes and above would probably be more use to the average reader for informing them and enabling navigation to other multiplanes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett, I could go along with that, though at least one quadruplane type saw operational service so there is an argument for just lumping the crazy one-offs (five and up) together. Also, I think the list would be short enough to include as a section in the main article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger. I am sorry, but I could draw up a category tree for my belly-button fluff and claim it was non-trivial. The burden is on the advocate to demonstrate non-triviality. WP:SMALLCAT says, "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." You need to provide viable evidence that your tree is "accepted" in this sense (unlike the tree of my belly-button fluff). Otherwise, we must accept that the precise number of wings beyond around four has no wider significance - historically, technically or culturally - and two such aircraft types with a similar wing count (should they even be found) would have no significant commonality based on their similar counts.

You also claim that these one-member categories are diffusing. I find that hard to believe. Can you give an example?

Also, you have been removing other categorizations apparently in contravention of WP:DUPCAT. Your first edit along these lines had the comment, "rv unexplained removal of cat" - I would be grateful if you could explain all your subsequent removals of cats. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for that summary, as it was before I'd seen the creation of Category:Multiplane aircraft. The removals are in full accordance with standard editing practice. The slightly condescending comparison aside, the number of wings on an aircraft is, by its very nature, highly defining (which is the main criterion for categorisation) and non-trivial; these categories have existed for nearly a year. As for "giving an example" of diffused categorsation involving single-member categories, Category:Aircraft by manufacturer is full of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My return apologies if I appeared condescending. I was seeking to lighten my tone a little but if I gave the wrong impression, that is my fault. My argument is that the number of wings is only defining up to about four, after that it becomes trivial. You repeat your claim that these higher numbers of wings are non-trivial, yet you offer no evidence - where is the literature establishing their individual significance, never mind listing them all? The fact that those categories have rotted for a year proves nothing. Concerning diffusion, I was asking for an example in the context of diffusion specifically through one of the multiplane subcategories you advocate. I ask, because I see none. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; that's the trouble with the Internet, inflection can be hard to miss.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the context of diffusion here; as for the number of wings being non-trivial, I'm afraid that's a question I can't quite grok as to me, the fact that the number of wings on an aircraft is one of the most defining features possible is simple WP:COMMONSENSE, and my brain goes slightly pear-shaped at trying to explain things like that. That said, if you strongly believe that the 5-, 6-, and 7-wing categories are unneeded and should be merged here, I won't object to whatever consensus a WP:CFD merger discussion results in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see that separate categories for multiplanes with more than four wings are useful, given that there is such a very small number of machines involved. Moreover a lot of the early curiosities, such as the Voisin Flying Fish do not merit articles, so would not show in the categories.TheLongTone (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those do merit articles, they just haven't been written yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Fish possibly merits a mention in the article on Voisin Freres, but most of the things I am thinking of did not fly and are hardly documented. A single "Strange but True" photo is not enough to base an article on.TheLongTone (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if they didn't fly, then that's a different matter; fair enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising to date, we have three editors who see all these little-used subcategories as unnecessary and one who feels they are useful. Do we have a strong enough consensus to sideline them? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a strong enough consensus to send them to WP:CFD for discussion, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now nominated at cfd — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]