Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

July 21[edit]

Politics of India by district[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering 11:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
62 more "Politics in Foo district" to "Politics of Foo district"
Nominator's rationale: To follow the "politics of Foo" convention of Category:Politics by city, Category:Politics by country, Category:Politics of India by state or territory, and all the other sub-national politics-by-place categs I have checked.
Note that about 20 of the district-level subcats of Category:Politics of India by district already use the "of" format, e.g. the subcats of Category:Politics of Kerala by district. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:White River (Arkansas)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:White River (Arkansas–Missouri). ℯxplicit 00:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The river is partially in Missouri. The "Arkansas" dis-ambiguation suffix is thus a partial misnomer. Georgia guy (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until article title is stabilised. The category title should follow the title of the head article. However, the head article has been moved 3 times this year between White River (Arkansas) and White River (Mississippi River), by Georgia guy & Hmains ([2], [3], [4]). There should be an RM discussion to settle the name of the head article ... and when that reaches a consensus, then this category can be WP:C2D-speedy-renamed to match. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Initially, it was at White River (Arkansas). But in January, I moved it to White River (Mississippi River) because the former title was inaccurate; the river is partially in Missouri. But recently, someone moved it back simply to make it consistent with the category title. I moved it back again and saw the category, and now I'm proposing a move of the category. Georgia guy (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with whatever uniform name is chosen. I was just trying to match things up between article and category. Hmains (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, @Hmains & @Georgia guy. I'm sure everyone was acting for the best. and hope nothing I wrote appeared to cast aspersions.
But still, now that we're here, let's stabilise both article and category titles. I have opened a procedural RM at Talk:White River (Mississippi River)#Requested_move_22_July_2017. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All is fine. Looking at this again I suppose that (Mississippi River) is the better disambiguation. Hmains (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1920 in Northern Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's an anachronism. Northern Ireland was not created until 1921.
Note that it is currently empty, since CFD July 11 deleted its only content Category:1920 in Northern Ireland sport. So it could be WP:C1 speedy-deleted, but I thought it better to get a consensus decision. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE, Peterkingiron, and Hugo999: pinging the other participants in the July 11 CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Human diseases and disorders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been a subcategory since I put it there yesterday. Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note for Category:Diseases and disorders says "While this category is primarily focused on Human diseases and disorders, it also includes subcategories for Animal and Plant diseases." Should we remove that? Should we move all the Human diseases and disorders - which seems to be almost all of them - into that category? Most of the very small number of articles about diseases in animals seem to focus on the risks to humans, not to animals. Rathfelder (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Subcats of Khosrow I[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 14:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, these subcategories consist of very few articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale
The category has been heavily discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Constituent of tobacco smoke. Bosley John Bosley has been populating the category, but all comments at the chemistry project are skeptical of the value or even legitimacy of the category. Tobacco smoke contains doubtless thousands of components. Bosley may underestimate the sensitivity of modern analytical chemistry. I am concerned that beyond the issue of WP:UNDUE (i.e. why should a particular component of cig smoke be singled out?), that future editors will advocate for categories as Constituent of milk, Constituent of bacon, Constituent of coffee, Constituent of lipstick.
In terms of guidelines for inappropriate types of user categories, this case seems to violate several: all-inclusive (how sensitive is one's analytical tool, parts per billion?), overly narrow (vs milk, coffee, beer, roast pork). In his defense, Bosely is ostensibly trying to warn readers about the hazards of smoking. But we are not in the advice business, and the "constituents of ..." theme could applied to many health related topics, as well as many topics not health related (constituents of laptops, asphalt, trees, ...). Smokefoot (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the discussion. The key thing for me is that Category:Constituents of x susbtance is WP:NONDEFINING. Tobacco smoke is made of several thousand chemicals. The same would apply to a more limited Category:Carcerinogens present in tobacco smoke. That water or benzene are present in tobacco smoke, true, but they also are present in countless other things. This is textbook WP:OVERCAT.
I have absolutely zero objections to a list article on the components of tobacco smoke however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nominator and other responding editors rationale. Anything that combust is going to have tons of constituents in its smoke. Klaun (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for almost all substances this is not an important characteristic. A list article on the topic is acceptable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or convert to List of constituents in tobacco smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Chemicals such as Nicotine, Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, 2-Naphthylamine, N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosonornicotine are textbook examples of "defining characteristics" per WP:NONDEFINING. Proposer asks why should a particular component of cig smoke be singled out? Because reliable sources commonly and consistently define the component as a constituent [1] and they do this often ( but not always) because there is a perceived health risk. If future editors advocate for categories such as Constituent of milk, Constituent of bacon, Constituent of coffee, Constituent of lipstick then Wikipedia has a tried and tested system to reach consensus on the merits - WP:CFD Incidentally the proposer is wrong about both my motivation and my power of estimation. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You seem to be cherry-picking members of the category to support your case. Carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and hydrazine, among others, are going to be found in the smoke produced by combustion of any organic substance at least in trace amounts. Also, the category contains three articles about the constituents of tobacco smoke. It seems like someone is trying to emphasize the subject by creating lots of content around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaun (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and per WP:NONDEFINING. The problem with any such "components of foo" category, is that while some components may be defined by their presence in foo, most are not. This has been well-explained in the discussion at WT:WikiProject Chemistry#Constituent of tobacco smoke, and I urge everyone to read that before commenting here.
I am not a chemist, but I do understand the disruptive effects of overcategorisation, so I looked at the contents of the category and was immediately struck by the presence of no less than six chemical elements, all added to this category by its creator BJB:
  1. Manganese [5]
  2. Cobalt [6]
  3. Copper [7]
  4. Mercury [8]
  5. Nickel [9]
  6. Cadmium [10]
It is utterly implausible to claim that out of the many many uses and occurrences of these elements, they are defined by their trace presence in one type of smoke. The claim is so preposterous that I am astonished that BJB defends it, and I can only hope that is because BJB has misunderstood DEFINING. The test of whether X is defined by Y is whether articles on X consistently mention Y; but BJB appears to have to have based the category on the inverse, of whether articles on Y consistently mention X.
Let me illustrate this error from another another context. Bobby Fuller was an American rock singer. Pretty much any article on Fuller is going to describe him as American. That's one of his defining characteristics (along with unsuccessfully fighting the law, but I digress).
But in categorising copper as a component of tobacco smoke, what BJB has done here is almost as daft as categorising the United States as the country which produced Bobby Fuller. It's the wrong way around.
Look at the lede of the article copper: 367 words, and not a mention of any type of smoke. Or see https://www.britannica.com/science/copper : ~1400 words, but no mention of smoke or tobacco in the whole article. There's just no way that this is a defining characteristic of copper.
These components may make a viable list. But they make a terrible category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever appearances, the fact is that I based the category on Reinskje Talhout et al Table 1. List of hazardous tobacco smoke components with their cancer and non-cancer inhalation risk values.. Initially my intention was to update/reference the existing list on wiki: I the went to Wikipedia's corresponding list before finding a second list which I linked to the first one. I found it impossible to collate the three tables- If someone is volunteering to do that then great we will be creating content rather than destroying it...@BrownHairedGirl: Please note the discussion at WT:WikiProject Chemistry#Constituent of tobacco smoke concerns "the mention of foo in the relevant article" not the "components of foo" category which is being discussed here. I get the problem restated that while most components may be defined by their presence in foo, some such as copper are not. My point is that components that are defined by their presence in foo (the baby) legitimise the existence of the category; those that are not so defined (the bathwater) can be removed from the category. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, BJB, the fact that only some of the components are defined in this way is precisely what makes the category unacceptable. If we kept categories which were defining for only some of their components, then articles such as copper would be overwhelmed by categories of trivial significance to the topic.
BTW, I selected the 6 elements as stark examples, not as an exhaustive list of non-definingness. I just spent a minute or two checking some of the category's other contents, and with many articles still unchecked, rapidly expanded the list of non-definingness to about half the category: acrylamide, acrylic acid, acrylonitrile, benzene, butanone, cadmium], chloromethane, chrysene, cobalt, copper, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium, hydrazine, hydrogen cyanide, manganese, mercury, nickel, nitrogen dioxide.
Note that a category is not content. It is merely a navigational device which links content .... so deleting it will remove no content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such" as being a constituent of tobacco smoke. Acrylamide passes this test: Tobacco smoke is a major source of acrylamide exposure within the general population; Acrylamide (...) is also present in tobacco smoke; This confirms the presence of acrylamide in tobacco smoke and shows that it is an important source of acrylamide exposure. Reliable sources commonly define the tough one - copper - as being a constituent of tobacco smoke: component of tobacco smoke; Copper is also found in trace amounts in cigarette smoke; The most abundant redox-active chemicals in cigarettes are copper and iron I am not so sure a defining characteristic of Copper is that it is a Symbol of Utah. (see Category:Symbols of Utah) Despite this, I have removed copper from the category....and that is the point...once the outliers are removed there will still remain sufficient constituents to populate a category. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now checked the others:
Bosley John Bosley (talk)
BJB, this is ridiculous. The test is whether "reliable sources commonly and consistently define". It is not whether you can find one or two or even a few dozen sources which mention it.
The fact that you could find a few cherry-picked examples which mention tobacco smoke is fine testimony to your ability to cherry-pick, and to the diligence with which you have engaged in that cherry-picking.
However, cherry-picked examples are not in any way evidence of the wider pattern sought by WP:DEFINING. I don't know whether you do not understand the very simple principle set out in WP:DEFINING, or whether you somehow hope that if you fill the page with enough screenfuls of irrelevancies, that will "win" the argument for you. But it's one or the other.
Either way, this sort of silliness continues to reinforce the impression you are giving of being someone who is trying to use Wikipedia to make some sort of point, rather than someone working collaboratively to help build an NPOV encyclopedia. This looks very like WP:THETRUTH. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) We do kept categories which are defining for only some of their components (Category:Hazardous air pollutants Category:Climate forcing agents Category:Greenhouse gases) and copper is not overwhelmed by categories of trivial significance. Nor would it it be if this category were to remain...it can be removed from the category! Note that a category is content - it is contained within the article...that is the definition of content. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. BJB, the category is not part of the article. Its presence on the article page is merely an artefact of the technical way in which categories are implemented; the categs could equally well be stored on wikidata, as interwiki links now are.
Yes, of course copper could be removed, but that's not the point. The reason the category needs to be deleted is that most of its potential contents are not defined in this way.
As to the other categories you mention, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think those categories are inappropriate, then feel free to nominate them or deletion. But before you do so, please take more time to study the cateorisation guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The category is part of the article. Its presence on the article page imparts knowledge to the reader. If they were instead stored on wikidata they would no longer be "content" Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Multiply wrong:
  1. interwikilinks are stored on wikidata and displayed on the page, but they are not content. Edit buttons and warning notices are also displayed on the page, but they too are not encyclopedic content.
  2. Categories most definitely do not exist to impart knowledge to the reader. Per WP:CAT, they are navigational tools.
    Per WP:CATVER, it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. So if the category imparts info which is not present in the body of the article, it should be removed.
So your "imparts knowledge" argument reinforces the case for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I refute it thus: I know Copper is a Symbol of Utah and that is a good thing. This knowledge was imparted via Category:Symbols of Utah as it is not mentioned in the main body of text. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BJB, the category "Symbol of Utah" should not be on a page if the page content does not make the reason clear. The category should be removed from the copper page, or the copper page should have added to it content justifying (with a reference) that copper is a Symbol of Utah. Given that copper is the state mineral of Utah, the latter is not difficult to achieve. When a category imparts knowledge in the way you have highlighted, it points to either an unjustified categorisation or missing article content. EdChem (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed [11] that Category:Symbols of Utah from Copper, per per WP:CATVER. I am not persuaded that such trivia belongs in the article, think but unless it is there and referenced, the categ goes. Even if it is mentioned in body text, is seems to me be utterly implausible that is a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is all very well @EdChem:, but if we follow BHG's reasoning:
It is utterly implausible to claim that out of the many many uses and occurrences of Copper, it is defined by its symbolic status in one US State. The claim is so preposterous that I am astonished that EdChem defends it, and I can only hope that is because EdChem has misunderstood DEFINING. The test of whether X=Copper is defined by Y=Symbol of Utah is whether articles on X=Copper consistently mention Y=Symbol of Utah; but EdChem appears to defend Category:Symbols of Utah on the inverse, of whether the article on Y Utah’s State Symbols consistently mention X=Copper.
I don't think it will be impossible to find an article on Copper which mentions the Utah State Symbol...the problem might be that, when you do find even a few dozen sources BHG will move the goalposts. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BHG can you confirm that by your reasoning the Category:Symbols of Utah should be deleted in its entirety. I have no doubt you will have the courage of your convictions. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I haven't studied anything else in Category:Symbols of Utah, so I have no idea whether any or all of the rest of it fails WP:DEFINING. It certainly merits investigation, but per WP:OTHERSTUFF that's a job for another time and place.
  2. I have not moved any goalposts. The test of WP:DEFINING remains unchanged.
Now, will please stop your persistent efforts to disrupt this discussion wih irrelevancies. This discussion is about Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke. Enough of your diversions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I evidently misjudged you. Claiming that a discussion of an analogous category (a technique yourself have used in the very same thread) at "Categories for discussion" is disruption is an example of moving the goalposts... Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the point, most of its potential contents can be removed if they serve no purpose. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bosley John Bosley (BJB): I would like to make a few points:
  1. As I am sure BrownHairedGirl (BHG) would attest, the two of us have disagreed on category issues in the past. However, I do not believe that she would endorse the words you have suggested she would direct to me above. I wrote that, without support within the article, the category should not remain, and noted that such support could be added. Whether its inclusion is given WP:UNDUE weighting to this fact is a separate issue, and one I did not include in my comments above. BHG, I would appreciate an explicit statement from you on your perspective of the words BJB is attributing to your views.
  2. BHG is a very active and highly respected editor in the category area. It is a part of WP where many (most?) editors never work and it operates by a set of rules intended to aid in navigation. Her concerns, and those of other editors who are CfD regulars, will focus on the usual practices in this area. As a non-regular, I take a different approach and am struggling to understand what you seek to achieve that is not achieved with list articles? I ask because the category approach would require explicit coverage in each chemical's article that was not WP:UNDUE, and the Chemistry WikiProject discussion already noted that this would be problematic. To illustrate using acetaldehyde: your list suggests up to 1 mg per cigarette, and even assuming all of that was actually taken into the bloodstream, drinking alcohol will introduce much more of this substance into the body. Just because a substance is carcinogenic doesn't necessarily make it a significant factor in smoking-related cancers. In other words, a list article on carcinogens in tobacco smoke which includes acetaldehyde and links to that article is easily justified, but coverage in the acetaldehyde or copper or other articles is justifiable only in reflection of due weight of reliable sources.
  3. As a piece of advice, your efforts do appear like an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and I think some of your more personalised comments are adding to that perception. There comes a time when accepting that consensus is against you is the wisest approach, even if you continue to believe the decision is wrong. You need not agree, and you can argue for a different outcome the next time the issue arises, but continuing to debate becomes unhelpful and only serves to solidify perceptions of you. EdChem (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of the Comments Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EdChem: I would define this as "my List" - and I honestly cannot find where this 1 mg acetaldehyde per cigarette information is contained. Can you provide a link please. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bosley John Bosley: I saw it in List of cigarette smoke carcinogens, linked later in this thread. I did not check on the sources for that list. EdChem (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to pull you up on your biology, My List shows acetaldehyde to have one of the highest Cancer risk values. Acetaldehyde in alcohol hits the liver = 5,550 new cases UK 2014 Acetaldehyde in cigarettes hits the lungs = 46,403 new cases UK 2014 Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to claim any great knowledge of biology, but I do know chemistry and statistics, and attributing all 46,403 new lung cancer cases to acetaldehyde and not to any of the other carcinogens in tobacco smoke is (ahem) problematic. EdChem (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to claim any great knowledge of biology or chemistry; but the Smoke/Acetaldehyde hits the lungs and so does the cancer - After leaving the bloodstream alcohol is transformed into Acetaldehyde in the liver. Is there any Acetaldehyde in the bloodstream in either case? And the statistics are more stark when you consider that 79% of UK population drink and 17% smoke. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BJB, we have an article on ethanol metabolism (which needs some significant clean up). You might also look at circulatory system which makes it clear that the bloodstream flows through the liver, rather than being separate from it. Ethanol is transformed to acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase, and the resulting acetaldehyde continues to circulate until it is transformed to acetic acid by aldehyde dehydrogenase. The latter article links to doi:10.1079/PNS2003327 to support the statement: "ALDH2 plays a crucial role in maintaining low blood levels of acetaldehyde during alcohol oxidation. In this pathway, the intermediate structures can be toxic, and health problems arise when those intermediates cannot be cleared." The freely accessible article at PMC 3479369 is titled "Lung Carcinogenesis by Tobacco Smoke" and is a 2013 article in the International Journal of Cancer that is used in our article on Lung cancer#Smoking. It mentions acetaldehyde once, as a cause of a single potentially carcinogenic DNA adduct (N2-Ethylidene-dG), one of the many carcinogenic and /or mutagenic DNA adducts known that are known. You might be interested to know that we have an article on (+)-benzo[a]pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide (which I wrote) that forms an intercalating DNA adduct which is responsible for the carcinogeneity of benzo[a]pyrene from tobacco smoke. There are very many DNA adducts formed from the carcinogenic and mutagenic chemicals in tobacco smoke. As I understand it, cancer can also result from the lodgement of (comparatively) large particles from smoke in the bronchioles (rather than being due to any single carcinogenic or mutagenic chemical compound), along with causing a variety of other conditions (emphysema, etc.) – see section 7 of "How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General" from 2009. The chemistry content (section 3) states "that 1,3-butadiene presented by far the most significant cancer risk; acrolein and acetaldehyde had the greatest potential to be respiratory irritants; and cyanide, arsenic, and the cresols were the primary sources of cardiovascular risk."

To answer your question "is there any acetaldehyde in the bloodstream in either case"... yes, but I also maintain that attributing all lung cancer cases to acetaldehyde is not defensible, and that the acetaldehyde levels in the bloodstream are much more related to alcohol consumption and fermentation products than to smoking. But, don't take my word for it. Doc James is a medical doctor and one of the most respected WP editors in medical topics, and I am pinging him to comment on the accuracy (or otherwise) of my comments. Doc James, I think this diff covers the relevant exchange prior to this post of mine where your expertise would be helpful. I provide this to help you avoid the need to reading the whole thread, and would appreciate your evaluation of flaws in the positions BJB and I have expressed – I'm happy to be corrected in any areas where I have misunderstood the situation.

BJB, if I may ask a personal question, you have stated above that you are "not going to claim any great knowledge of biology or chemistry." I don't have much expertise in macro-scale biology or medicine, but at the molecular biological level, I think my chemical understanding is sufficient to edit selectively in these areas. My question is: do you think you have the expertise to be competent in making content judgements on carcinogens and tobacco smoke? What is it you seek to achieve? It is clear from this discussion that the consensus on the category question is against you, and the Chemistry WikiProject contributors have raised substantial issues of due weight in some of your edits. I am wondering why you are persisting with what seems to be the view that you know more than the rest of us. EdChem (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your last para first. This table lists tobacco smoke components. It is not a random list such that its use might give undue weight. It lists constituents the authors note that previous authors have considered as hazardous. I think my understanding of health and safety is sufficient in that I have edited selectively making no great claims that cannot be backed up by WP:RS Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EdChem, tks for the ping. Yes, I most certainly do not in any way endorse the words which BJB tried to put into my mouth about you. I considered posting directly to disown them, but unfortunately there was so much nonsense coming from BJB that I had decided to be selective in reply to avoid overwhelming the page, and I prioritised something else. That was probably a bad call, because BJB had misrepresented both of us.
Ed, AFAICR you and I have disagreed about categories far more than we have agreed. But I know that just as I try to maintain the viability of the categ system by seeking consistency and focus, you have a long and respected track record of working to ensure that chemistry articles retain an encyclopedic focus. So it is unsurprising that our views coincide in this case, where we find an editor whose only concern appears to be to promote a particular topic. I have seen nothing at all from BJB to suggest that they are in the slightest bit concerned about the broad principles of a WP:NPOV encyclopedia, which are reflected in some of the policies and guidelines we are discussing here, such as WP:UNDUE, WP:CATVER, WP:DEFINING.
I think it is time for BJB to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, thanks for your response, and I do understand you needed to make choices about was the highest priority for a response. As far as I recall, our disagreements have been mainly in relation to user categories, as I don't recall having taken much interest in article categories, nor having had many strong views in the area. I may recall incorrectly, of course. However, I have regard for your dedication and work in categories and if you were arguing the reverse of the way you are, that would lead me to reflect on whether I had misunderstood the issues. BJB did recently ask a question about red links in articles which I saw as reflecting a genuine concern for encyclopedic content when I replied to it, so I hope that he will make more positive contributions... but I may be overly optimistic and I certainly do hope that this particular topic goes away. EdChem (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely replying to you assertion that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST... If we kept categories which were defining for only some of their components Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BJB, the long-standing practice at CFD, for over a decade, is that a category where most of its potential contents can be removed is deleted. See WP:TRIVIALCAT.
The reason for deletion rather than purging is that so long as the category exists, it will be unstable, as editors apply arbitrary and/or subjective criteria for inclusion. See WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are no adjectives which imply Subjective inclusion criterion. There is no Arbitrary inclusion criterion and the category in no way matches the examples of Trivial characteristics or intersection. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please don't waste the time of other editors with demonstrably false assertions such as your claim that WT:WikiProject Chemistry#Constituent of tobacco smoke it isn't about the category. That discussion does explicitly considering the category near the end, but the rest of it is about how tobacco smoke is too trivial an issue to merit any mention in many of the articles you had been spamming with it. That is the same issue as the definingness we are discussing here: if topic X doesn't merit even a mention of Y, then it would be absurd to categorise X as containing Y. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Digression
....near the end...I make the point at least twice (including my very first comment!!) that WP:CFD is the platform for discussing the category. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. So you agree that it did discuss it directly, even though you pointed out it was the wrong place to do so. There's your bogus assertion half-retracted.
However, it seems that you still don't understand (or won't acknowledge) the correlation between the too-trivial-to-mention focus of the first part of that discussion and its later explicit focus on categorisation. I am running out of ways to explain that you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is you who is now wasting the time of other editors with demonstrably false assertions.Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That unevidenced tit-for-tat response reinforces the strong impression you are giving of being someone out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, rather than to build an NPOV enyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Constituents of tobacco smoke or carcinogenic constituents of tobacco smoke are reasonable topics for a list article, but not for a category for the reasons outlined in the WT:CHEM discussion and above by BHG. If a list article is created, links should be mostly one way. EdChem (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:NONDEFINING, as nicely and thoroughly explained by BrownHairedGirl here. I note that nom's arguments are less strong, e.g. the potential high number of articles and difficulty to decide (like by arbitrary ppm level). -DePiep (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no objection to listifying if appropriate, but my guess is that we might start getting some of the items being categorised by other occurences, which would give rise to the category clutter that means that we do not allow performances by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to re-iterate since several editors are suggesting listifying as a resolution, that the category itself contains 3 list articles about the components of Tobacco Smoke. The topic seems thoroughly covered, it's a bit hard to understand what additional information this category offers. I think it is just repitition for emphasis. Klaun (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I have just this moment added List of additives in cigarettes to the category set Bosley John Bosley (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't make any sense. Also, that article is poor quality itself, being completely a WP:COATRACK. The category and some of the related articles seem like WP:SOAP Klaun (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Monopolies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, categories consist of one or two articles only. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:SMALLCAT explicitly excludes (allows) categories that "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization", and/or "have realistic potential for growth". Also I find the specifiers like 'food' and 'media' very informative. -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only 5 out of 14 subcategories are nominated here, so there is a larger set. Also, parent Category:Monopolies has no articles (subcats only), which can claim the 'overall'. -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was, there is no overarching Category:Monopolies by industry that requires a full diffusion by all industries, and moreover not all industries require a monopoly subcat. So this is very local categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge. It's difficult to imagine there will be an imminent surge of monopolies in these fields. This is an example of over-categorisation and hinders navigation, particularly having categories with only one potential member. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to change this one, but favouring nomination for renaming of other saints categories to include "Christian" in the name where this is applicable. – Fayenatic London 14:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Christian" is unnecessary, since the division between the ante-Nicene Period and the post-Nicene period is completely irrelevant for all other religions. We don't enforce a firm naming convention with "Christian" in all saints categories, as can be seen from Category:Ancient Roman saints and Category:Child saints, so I don't see a problem with removing "Christian" here. Alternately, I'd be open to starting to enforce such a convention if people think it wiser instead to add "Christian" to the Child and Ancient Roman categories. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT 2 I'd favour the latter. While it may not sit nicely with WP:Precision, I expect that lots of child Hindu saints exist and that sooner or later a category will be created for them. In which case Category:Child saints would become a container category. So it would then become necessary to create Category:Christian child saints. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for Ante-Nicene and Ancient Roman categories, for both of them it's entirely obvious that it is about Christian saints, so we don't have to add "Christian" for the sake of disambiguation (but we can, for the sake of consistency). For child saints it is less obviously about Christian saints, so here I concur with Laurel Lodged that it can better be renamed to Category:Christian child saints. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Media in India[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering 11:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
additional categories
Nominator's rationale: Subcategories should be in line with parent Category:Media in India and other country-level categories, which were renamed following this discussion: WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_10#Media_by_country. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ Wikipedia:Overcategorization
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_21&oldid=1149837828"