![]() | This page has a twofold purpose by which it meets the needs of the Chicago Project members, general readers, and editors of pages that are within the scope of the Chicago Project:
|
Seems by setting PSCs within the main page (as was done with Harlem (CTA) using category:Chicago Transit Authority), a possible conflict was set up. By being in CHIBOTCATS the bot will try to establish a Chicago Project assessment value within the Talk page. But, the banner within the Talk page already has a Class value of "Disambig". Is this a problem? How can we resolve? I'm looking to establish a statement within this articles Disamgig Instructions where I have already given a manual "procedural solution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pknkly ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No response to date. Perhaps some more information will be found by which the answer would be gleaned. Pknkly ( talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Are these types of guidelines and "policy" statements made anywhere else within Chicago Project pages? Don't want to duplicate and risk contradiction and thereby confuse readers/members. Pknkly ( talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Looked at all the subpages of WikiProject Chicago. Didn't look like there was one. There might be something within the pages. Pknkly ( talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Few instructions given within talk pages (e.g., Category talk:Chicago, Illinois ) but that is about it. Pknkly ( talk) 19:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry about causing you ( User talk:Funandtrvl ) work with the deletes of {{cat class}} from Chicago Project class based assigned categories (e.g., Category:Category-Class Chicago articles ). So I can get a better understanding how these are used would you please answer the following questions or point me to articles that have the answer? Is it the ":Category:Chicago articles by quality" that is important for bots to run correctly? Which bot does that? Also, is the category placed by the {{cat class }} template or is it added manually? Is the {{CategoryTOC}} also used by bots? Pknkly ( talk) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Working the above into the article. Pknkly ( talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Still looking for time to get this done. Pknkly ( talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the dichotomy between the categories for main namespace and the project space, which is almost always related to "talk" pages only needs to be emphasized. ( message by User talk:Funandtrvl copied from User talk:Pknkly ) Pknkly ( talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please take a round of edit and make the changes that would give it the right emphasis. I will stay out of the article until you are done. Pknkly ( talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Plan to archive this discussion just as soon as it is incorporated into the article - even if it is in draft form. 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Incorporated some within "Overview" sections. Please review the "Overview sections (they can be seen within the TOC of the document) and see if it is adequately covered. Pknkly ( talk) 14:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should create: Category:Chicago Wikipedia administration? Projects that use this type of administration are listed in: Category:Wikipedia administration by topic, and may serve a useful purpose in following their style of organization. (message by User talk:Funandtrvl copied from User talk:Pknkly ) Pknkly ( talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
What I thought we could do is capture the Chicago Project scope with high level category codes. I tried to describe them within the article at the "PSC014 - Category page PSCs" starting with paragraph "Based on these perspectives, ...". Pknkly ( talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As I wrote the above statement I felt as though I'm straying from the topic of this section. So, I'm putting this statement as a placeholder so I can get back on track after I go throught the Canadian pages. Pknkly ( talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the Canadian pages. Two things jumped out that did not work for me.
For me the Canadian example points out some "lessons learned" that I hope we can avoid or control with info boxes and just simply having things documented as we are doing with wpchi/cat. Pknkly ( talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
As we work on the scheme it sounds like we are going to try and work in a "core" (or maybe a better word would be "absolute") set of paths that would be maintained by the Project team. The team is given tools to maintaine these core paths. The "incidental" paths are those set up by any editor at any time based on their own personal or perceived scheme. The core and incidental paths intertwine and so the challange is to identify the categories used within the core paths and the proper use of them.
Is there a similar concept already documented? If not, lets develop it further and include it in the article. I'll look at wp:categorisation again to see if it is there. Pknkly ( talk) 18:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Reread wp:categorisation. It mentions the need to keep separated "content categories" and "project categories" ( see Project categories ) but now how to do that. Sounds like that is what we have to wrestle with. How have other WikiProjects come to terms with this need? Pknkly ( talk) 15:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The categorization feature of Wikipedia's software allows and encourages users to develop their own categorization scheme. This beneficial element of the categorization feature sets up an environment within which multiple categorizatin schemes, that are mostly undocumented, must coexist. Among all the category schemes one needs to be developed and maintained by the Chicago Project members so that they can fullfill their purpose. That one categorization scheme among the many is the Core Scheme which needs to be understood, developed as needed, and documented. The other schemes are the Incidental Schemes and may not be clearly understood or documented. They are, nevertheless, a vital component of the categorization feature of Wikipedia. Sometimes a review of the incidental processes may reveal a need to change the Core Scheme. Pknkly ( talk) 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The above paragraph was moved within the document at Categorization scheme section. Pknkly ( talk) 01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I set the section title so that the entire section can be moved out of the PSC014 topic area. I plan to move it toward the end so that by the time a reader gets to it they are familiar with the article's unavoidable jargon. I thought the section would follow the PSC and PSP topics and be before the BOTS section. I'll wait until the recent edits to the scheme area are settled. If the edits are settled for the time being, please move the scheme section. It doesn't have to be me doing the move. Pknkly ( talk) 05:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The section was moved with some modifications based on the above discussion. I moved it to the front of the page so it given an idea to the readers what is to be accomplished. Due to what the section currently says I've made some changes to the parent/child relationship between Category:WikiProject Chicago and Category:Chicago, Illinois. I plan to restructure the parent/child relationships between the three main categories if the narrative within the section gets some more feedback. Pknkly ( talk) 03:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to the excessive size of the Categories page the section on the categorization scheme was moved to within a subdocument at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Categorization scheme. Please continue the discussions within the new subdocument. Pknkly ( talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
To following message was copied from another discussion section.
Copy performed by Pknkly ( talk) 04:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Use of "Tag" I asked people for what tag meant and got severel different answers. That is why I had a section on how terms are used in the document. I think the use of a section about how terms are used within the article is good since there are so many different meanings to the terms (see glossary for tag ). With my reread of "Wikipedia:Categorization" I beleive I found the right pharase for my use of "tag". It is "category declarations". Would you please look at How categories work and see if my understanding is correct? Pknkly ( talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk or talk With regard to Talk or talk. I meant the capatized form to mean a specific type of talk page (e.g., "Within Mainspace Talk the WikiProject Chicago template must....." ). The lower case "talk" would refer to any talk page (e.g., "WikiProject Chicago template is always placed within talk pages, never the Basic page."). It was a mistake if I was inconsistent in its use. I did realize that I was getting away from standard convention, but I never saw the logic of "them" using the lowercase form. If it detracts from the readability of the document, due to not following standard convention, I'll drop the use of the capitalized form. After reading the above, are you still in favor of dropping the capitalized form? Pknkly ( talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Use of code I started to use the "mathematical codes" because the repetitive use of phrases like " Article that is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago" made reading even harder for me. I tried coming up with mnemonics which didn't work (e.g., AWPCHI for "Article that is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago"). I finaly settled on a compramise between a mnemonic for Project Scope Page (PSP) and the number of the name space as gien within the table. I don't know how to get away from the use of the codes. To get a feel for what the document would look like without codes do a "replace all" for PSC014 with "Project Scope Category Basic page" or whatever phrase may work. I just don't know what to do. Nevertheless, I completely understand and agree with your point. I thought within each PSP and PSC section we could use a less technical summary/overview without the use of codes or mnemonics. Like the one you made yesterday at the bottom of the "Dichotomy" discussion. Perhaps you could compose the summary/overview and I would translate it into PSC and PSP etc. Do you think this might work? Pknkly ( talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Use of subpages I too thought about use of subpages. I thought the scheme section would grow and ultimately need its own page. I see huge benefit in your idea about subpages for "WikiProject Chicago project categories" and "WikiProject Chicago content categories". That would set it up very nicely for readers to be guided to the "WikiProject Chicago content categories". We would not be losing readers due to reading technical stuff. No PSP001,PSC014, or any code within the "reader" document. The tone should be one reader (us) talking to the users of the encyclopedic Articles and encyclopedic Categories (it wasn't until my reread of wp:categorization that it sank in). I assume the main document wpchi/cat would have sections with summarizing narrative about the content of subpages and have it state "Main article:WikiProject Chicago content categories" at the top of the section. I would want to see the subpages under wpchi/cat not WPCHI. Agreed? Pknkly ( talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Subpage for content created and started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Categories for encyclopedic articles. This page is meant for general readers/editors, so I tried my best to keep out all jargon. The long name was needed because "articles" is interpreted in many different ways. From what I've seen everyone seems to agree that encyclopedic articles are only in Main. Pknkly ( talk) 07:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Noticed the category for the article (wpchi/cat) was changed to have "noinclude". What did that do or prevent? Is it something that is needed for certain types of articles? Pknkly ( talk) 16:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Read the above and only obsorbed about 50% without following your links. Sounds important to understand and has potential for inclusion in wpchi/cat. I like the hard rule (I'm assuming it is one - please confirm) " We need to add the proj category to all the subpages of WP:WPCHI". Will look into the above more deeply after quick look at Canadian project and the newly populated category used with MAIN_CAT. I'l have to pause until this evening. Pknkly ( talk) 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry for using the wrong word, it is mboxes not infoboxes. I discovered them at what looked like categories used by developers and adopted them for the re-categorizing work at Category:Organizations based in Chicago, Illinois. There, when I needed to, I created new categories and incorporate the use of mboxes and a "See also" section directing readers to the Chicago project (e.g., Category:Sports associations based in Chicago, Illinois ). I used a copy and paste process and so the mboxes hopefully evolved in the right direction. Shall we incorporate the use of mboxes into the "Effective category" section of wpchi/cat? In another words, an effective wpchi category would have:(a) wpchi category - a PSC014 - within the Basic page; (b) the WikiProject Banner in the talk page; and now it would also need (c) to use an mbox. If we do, I think in the future a bot could find wpchi category pages that don't have an mbox and the Chicago Project team could respond to it. Pknkly ( talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Started developing two WikiProject Chicago templates by which the mbox would be automatically added, along with the right categories, for content categories being created and project/tracking categories when those are created. They are at User:Pknkly/TempWork02 for tracking categories and User:Pknkly/TempWork03 for content categories. Pknkly ( talk) 01:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Even though the development of the templates is changing, I started using them with a copy paste (pseudo subst) to help in creating more informative project and content categories used by Chicago Project. Pknkly ( talk) 14:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe it should be standard practice to use distinguished subcategories for both Category:Chicago, Illinois and Category:Chicago metropolitan area. As can be see from the duplicate categorization rule it is an accepted procedure and in my opinion way too unrealized and unused by other projects. The use of distinguished subcategories would allow readers to look for articles using either the list of articles within the two main content categories or within the distinguished subcategories. By not using distinguished subcategories we are limiting readers to using only subcategories. Pknkly ( talk) 06:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#How_much_categorization_guidance_does_a_city_need? about these pages. DexDor (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page has a twofold purpose by which it meets the needs of the Chicago Project members, general readers, and editors of pages that are within the scope of the Chicago Project:
|
Seems by setting PSCs within the main page (as was done with Harlem (CTA) using category:Chicago Transit Authority), a possible conflict was set up. By being in CHIBOTCATS the bot will try to establish a Chicago Project assessment value within the Talk page. But, the banner within the Talk page already has a Class value of "Disambig". Is this a problem? How can we resolve? I'm looking to establish a statement within this articles Disamgig Instructions where I have already given a manual "procedural solution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pknkly ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No response to date. Perhaps some more information will be found by which the answer would be gleaned. Pknkly ( talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Are these types of guidelines and "policy" statements made anywhere else within Chicago Project pages? Don't want to duplicate and risk contradiction and thereby confuse readers/members. Pknkly ( talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Looked at all the subpages of WikiProject Chicago. Didn't look like there was one. There might be something within the pages. Pknkly ( talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Few instructions given within talk pages (e.g., Category talk:Chicago, Illinois ) but that is about it. Pknkly ( talk) 19:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry about causing you ( User talk:Funandtrvl ) work with the deletes of {{cat class}} from Chicago Project class based assigned categories (e.g., Category:Category-Class Chicago articles ). So I can get a better understanding how these are used would you please answer the following questions or point me to articles that have the answer? Is it the ":Category:Chicago articles by quality" that is important for bots to run correctly? Which bot does that? Also, is the category placed by the {{cat class }} template or is it added manually? Is the {{CategoryTOC}} also used by bots? Pknkly ( talk) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Working the above into the article. Pknkly ( talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Still looking for time to get this done. Pknkly ( talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the dichotomy between the categories for main namespace and the project space, which is almost always related to "talk" pages only needs to be emphasized. ( message by User talk:Funandtrvl copied from User talk:Pknkly ) Pknkly ( talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please take a round of edit and make the changes that would give it the right emphasis. I will stay out of the article until you are done. Pknkly ( talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Plan to archive this discussion just as soon as it is incorporated into the article - even if it is in draft form. 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Incorporated some within "Overview" sections. Please review the "Overview sections (they can be seen within the TOC of the document) and see if it is adequately covered. Pknkly ( talk) 14:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should create: Category:Chicago Wikipedia administration? Projects that use this type of administration are listed in: Category:Wikipedia administration by topic, and may serve a useful purpose in following their style of organization. (message by User talk:Funandtrvl copied from User talk:Pknkly ) Pknkly ( talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
What I thought we could do is capture the Chicago Project scope with high level category codes. I tried to describe them within the article at the "PSC014 - Category page PSCs" starting with paragraph "Based on these perspectives, ...". Pknkly ( talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As I wrote the above statement I felt as though I'm straying from the topic of this section. So, I'm putting this statement as a placeholder so I can get back on track after I go throught the Canadian pages. Pknkly ( talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the Canadian pages. Two things jumped out that did not work for me.
For me the Canadian example points out some "lessons learned" that I hope we can avoid or control with info boxes and just simply having things documented as we are doing with wpchi/cat. Pknkly ( talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
As we work on the scheme it sounds like we are going to try and work in a "core" (or maybe a better word would be "absolute") set of paths that would be maintained by the Project team. The team is given tools to maintaine these core paths. The "incidental" paths are those set up by any editor at any time based on their own personal or perceived scheme. The core and incidental paths intertwine and so the challange is to identify the categories used within the core paths and the proper use of them.
Is there a similar concept already documented? If not, lets develop it further and include it in the article. I'll look at wp:categorisation again to see if it is there. Pknkly ( talk) 18:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Reread wp:categorisation. It mentions the need to keep separated "content categories" and "project categories" ( see Project categories ) but now how to do that. Sounds like that is what we have to wrestle with. How have other WikiProjects come to terms with this need? Pknkly ( talk) 15:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The categorization feature of Wikipedia's software allows and encourages users to develop their own categorization scheme. This beneficial element of the categorization feature sets up an environment within which multiple categorizatin schemes, that are mostly undocumented, must coexist. Among all the category schemes one needs to be developed and maintained by the Chicago Project members so that they can fullfill their purpose. That one categorization scheme among the many is the Core Scheme which needs to be understood, developed as needed, and documented. The other schemes are the Incidental Schemes and may not be clearly understood or documented. They are, nevertheless, a vital component of the categorization feature of Wikipedia. Sometimes a review of the incidental processes may reveal a need to change the Core Scheme. Pknkly ( talk) 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The above paragraph was moved within the document at Categorization scheme section. Pknkly ( talk) 01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I set the section title so that the entire section can be moved out of the PSC014 topic area. I plan to move it toward the end so that by the time a reader gets to it they are familiar with the article's unavoidable jargon. I thought the section would follow the PSC and PSP topics and be before the BOTS section. I'll wait until the recent edits to the scheme area are settled. If the edits are settled for the time being, please move the scheme section. It doesn't have to be me doing the move. Pknkly ( talk) 05:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The section was moved with some modifications based on the above discussion. I moved it to the front of the page so it given an idea to the readers what is to be accomplished. Due to what the section currently says I've made some changes to the parent/child relationship between Category:WikiProject Chicago and Category:Chicago, Illinois. I plan to restructure the parent/child relationships between the three main categories if the narrative within the section gets some more feedback. Pknkly ( talk) 03:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to the excessive size of the Categories page the section on the categorization scheme was moved to within a subdocument at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Categorization scheme. Please continue the discussions within the new subdocument. Pknkly ( talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
To following message was copied from another discussion section.
Copy performed by Pknkly ( talk) 04:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Use of "Tag" I asked people for what tag meant and got severel different answers. That is why I had a section on how terms are used in the document. I think the use of a section about how terms are used within the article is good since there are so many different meanings to the terms (see glossary for tag ). With my reread of "Wikipedia:Categorization" I beleive I found the right pharase for my use of "tag". It is "category declarations". Would you please look at How categories work and see if my understanding is correct? Pknkly ( talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk or talk With regard to Talk or talk. I meant the capatized form to mean a specific type of talk page (e.g., "Within Mainspace Talk the WikiProject Chicago template must....." ). The lower case "talk" would refer to any talk page (e.g., "WikiProject Chicago template is always placed within talk pages, never the Basic page."). It was a mistake if I was inconsistent in its use. I did realize that I was getting away from standard convention, but I never saw the logic of "them" using the lowercase form. If it detracts from the readability of the document, due to not following standard convention, I'll drop the use of the capitalized form. After reading the above, are you still in favor of dropping the capitalized form? Pknkly ( talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Use of code I started to use the "mathematical codes" because the repetitive use of phrases like " Article that is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago" made reading even harder for me. I tried coming up with mnemonics which didn't work (e.g., AWPCHI for "Article that is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago"). I finaly settled on a compramise between a mnemonic for Project Scope Page (PSP) and the number of the name space as gien within the table. I don't know how to get away from the use of the codes. To get a feel for what the document would look like without codes do a "replace all" for PSC014 with "Project Scope Category Basic page" or whatever phrase may work. I just don't know what to do. Nevertheless, I completely understand and agree with your point. I thought within each PSP and PSC section we could use a less technical summary/overview without the use of codes or mnemonics. Like the one you made yesterday at the bottom of the "Dichotomy" discussion. Perhaps you could compose the summary/overview and I would translate it into PSC and PSP etc. Do you think this might work? Pknkly ( talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Use of subpages I too thought about use of subpages. I thought the scheme section would grow and ultimately need its own page. I see huge benefit in your idea about subpages for "WikiProject Chicago project categories" and "WikiProject Chicago content categories". That would set it up very nicely for readers to be guided to the "WikiProject Chicago content categories". We would not be losing readers due to reading technical stuff. No PSP001,PSC014, or any code within the "reader" document. The tone should be one reader (us) talking to the users of the encyclopedic Articles and encyclopedic Categories (it wasn't until my reread of wp:categorization that it sank in). I assume the main document wpchi/cat would have sections with summarizing narrative about the content of subpages and have it state "Main article:WikiProject Chicago content categories" at the top of the section. I would want to see the subpages under wpchi/cat not WPCHI. Agreed? Pknkly ( talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Subpage for content created and started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Categories for encyclopedic articles. This page is meant for general readers/editors, so I tried my best to keep out all jargon. The long name was needed because "articles" is interpreted in many different ways. From what I've seen everyone seems to agree that encyclopedic articles are only in Main. Pknkly ( talk) 07:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Noticed the category for the article (wpchi/cat) was changed to have "noinclude". What did that do or prevent? Is it something that is needed for certain types of articles? Pknkly ( talk) 16:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Read the above and only obsorbed about 50% without following your links. Sounds important to understand and has potential for inclusion in wpchi/cat. I like the hard rule (I'm assuming it is one - please confirm) " We need to add the proj category to all the subpages of WP:WPCHI". Will look into the above more deeply after quick look at Canadian project and the newly populated category used with MAIN_CAT. I'l have to pause until this evening. Pknkly ( talk) 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry for using the wrong word, it is mboxes not infoboxes. I discovered them at what looked like categories used by developers and adopted them for the re-categorizing work at Category:Organizations based in Chicago, Illinois. There, when I needed to, I created new categories and incorporate the use of mboxes and a "See also" section directing readers to the Chicago project (e.g., Category:Sports associations based in Chicago, Illinois ). I used a copy and paste process and so the mboxes hopefully evolved in the right direction. Shall we incorporate the use of mboxes into the "Effective category" section of wpchi/cat? In another words, an effective wpchi category would have:(a) wpchi category - a PSC014 - within the Basic page; (b) the WikiProject Banner in the talk page; and now it would also need (c) to use an mbox. If we do, I think in the future a bot could find wpchi category pages that don't have an mbox and the Chicago Project team could respond to it. Pknkly ( talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Started developing two WikiProject Chicago templates by which the mbox would be automatically added, along with the right categories, for content categories being created and project/tracking categories when those are created. They are at User:Pknkly/TempWork02 for tracking categories and User:Pknkly/TempWork03 for content categories. Pknkly ( talk) 01:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Even though the development of the templates is changing, I started using them with a copy paste (pseudo subst) to help in creating more informative project and content categories used by Chicago Project. Pknkly ( talk) 14:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe it should be standard practice to use distinguished subcategories for both Category:Chicago, Illinois and Category:Chicago metropolitan area. As can be see from the duplicate categorization rule it is an accepted procedure and in my opinion way too unrealized and unused by other projects. The use of distinguished subcategories would allow readers to look for articles using either the list of articles within the two main content categories or within the distinguished subcategories. By not using distinguished subcategories we are limiting readers to using only subcategories. Pknkly ( talk) 06:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#How_much_categorization_guidance_does_a_city_need? about these pages. DexDor (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)