This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
In the last months, user The Transhumanist has changed the WP:SORTKEY for many outline articles from "asterisk" to "space". For example, see here: [1] [2], and many similar edits were made by him, see list [3]. Note, "Outline of mining" is not a main article for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mining. Only Mining is a main article for this category. The articles typically called "History of X" ("Types of X", "List of X", "Outline of X") should be categorized with asterisk, per WP:SORTKEY.
From
WP:SORTKEY: The main article/s of a category, if existent, should get sorted with a space as key so that it/they appear at the very top of the category. Example: [[Category:Example| ]]
Those articles are typically homonymous or at least synonymous to their category. Furthermore other general articles that are highly relevant to the category should be sorted with an asterisk as key so that they also appear at the top of a category but beneath the main article/s. Example: [[Category:Example|*]]
Those articles are typically called "History of example", "Types of example", "List of example" or similar.
I think, it's a very bad situation when "Outline of X" is located above the main "X" article in the related category. See ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wine for example, Outline of wine is located above Wine. The readers want to see the main article first, not "outline" of something else, so space as a sortkey should be used for only one main article (in most cases). I ask to restore the correct categorization with "asterisk" for all outline articles. 46.211.1.121 ( talk) 15:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for correct explanation finally. Now I understand the reasons of your edits, but your logic is absolutely wrong. It's a very bad situation when "Outline of X" is located above the main "X" article in the related category (see ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wine for example, Outline of wine is located above Wine). Readers want to see the main article first, not "outline" of something, so space as a sortkey should be used for only one main article (in most cases). I will start a discussion on related forum to ask what the other editors think about your version of sortkeys for outlines. 46.211.2.10 ( talk) 14:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- No need. Thank you for sharing your opinions. Your wine example convinced me. I agree with you that all other links should fall after the key article. I hadn't considered whether or not "Index" and "Outline" should appear ahead of the root article. It's not hard picking the root article out from them. But, from library classification and publishing points of view, that would be presenting the table of contents and the index before the subject itself, which does seem awkward, when you think about it. To ensure that they fall below the bare subject, per WP:SORTKEY #10, I'll start correcting outlines' placement with my next maintenance pass, or sooner, if I can figure out how to use WP:AWB to do it. And I've added "Outline of" and "Index of" to the appropriate place in WP:SORTKEY (#10). Thank you for your persistence. I'll try to be more open minded in future discussions, with whomever they happen to be with. Keep up the good work. We're lucky to have you here. — The Transhumanist 12:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Done Adjusted sort key for those outlines that appeared before key article in the root article's category, per WP:SORTKEY #10. — The Transhumanist 12:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
With related (more clear) changes in #10 rule. Normal or not? 46.211.155.173 ( talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Further input is requested at Category talk:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants#Sorting -- wooden superman 09:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Template_talk:Very_large#Template_name concerning potentially changing the naming scheme from "very large" to an alternative. Input is invited. -- Bsherr ( talk) 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that several language categories have been inappropriately emptied and tagged for speedy deletion by Jkrn111, and seemingly blindly/carelessly deleted by other administrators ( RHaworth, Anthony Bradbury, perhaps others, but these are the prevalent ones in the samples I looked at). Take for example Category:Irian Highlands languages, which was created in April 2011 by another user, was speedily deleted with the rationale "No use, Existing Category:West Papuan Highlands languages". This is obviously not a valid speedy deletion criterion. It was replaced by Category:West Papuan Highlands languages, which was created by the aforementioned user in April of this year without any discussion, and without proper attribution. Similarly, Category:Marind languages, Category:Morehead and Upper Maro River languages, Category:Kaure–Kapori languages, among various others, were emptied and deleted under similar fashion. This really has become a mess that should have gone through the CFD process to begin with, and it would be appreciated if others more knowledge of these subjects can look into it. ℯ xplicit 00:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
{{cat handler
| all = {{ #ifexpr:{{#time:U}} >= {{#time:U|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} + 7 days }} |[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]][[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories]]|[[Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion]]}}
| nocat = {{{nocat|}}}
| category2 = {{{category|¬}}}
}}
{{
delete}}
directly. I am aware that Commons encourages it (see
c:Template:Delete and indeed
c:Template:Speedy), but we are not Commons. If people can't be bothered to state explicitly which speedy deletion criterion they are claiming, then
WP:CSD cannot apply and the tag should be reverted. Can we do something (perhaps in Lua) that will allow {{
db}}
to detect direct use without a wrapper such as {{
db-c1}}
? If we can, it should display an error message and not the speedy deletion pink box. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
db}}
is intended for direct use. I'm not aware of any other template which uses it. It is {{
db-meta}} which is used by other deletion templates.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
22:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)WP:CAT#T says "Templates should be categorized... not by template content", but this would seem to defeat the whole categorization systems for templates. If I cannot put a template in any non-template category then I cannot find any templates via categories... even if I know they do exists. I would have to know the exact template name or exact template category name... and these are often highly unpredictable.
How does it possibly improve Wikipedia to not let Template:History of Christianity be in Category:History of Christianity? tahc chat 03:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I have set up Category:Category redirects with possibilities, for names that are currently redirected but where there is potential to helpfully populate a separate category.
{{ R with possibilities}} can now be added to a category redirect page, and it will put the page into the above category. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Should ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:SpaceX commercial payloads be the subcategory of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Spacecraft launched by Falcon rockets? Maybe correct as of now, but incorrect when SpaceX will have more than one Falcon rocket family (BFR etc). Or it should be the subcategory of parent ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:SpaceX directly with addition of all "spacecraft/payload" articles to both categories. 91.124.117.29 ( talk) 23:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I have made several edit requests to semi-protected WP:BLP articles, which involve compliance with my interpretation of WP:CATV. The way I understand it is that all attached categories must be verifiable, and they must also be supported by some kind of prose or indication in the article that indicates membership in the category. So if the late Kate Spade is in Category:American Roman Catholics, then we should expect the article to read, somewhere, "Spade is a baptized Catholic and goes to Mass every Sunday. She spoke about her faith in a CNN interview.[1]" but I have been repeatedly rebuffed by editors who tell me that we do not need to worry about what the article says, as long as the fact is indicated in a source... somewhere (the fact in question is not actually mentioned in any source at all.) So when this guideline says "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." does it really mean what I think it means, or am I simply misguided? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 05:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If an article's content does not support membership in a category, then the category can and should be removed. If supporting content is there, but editors decide (whether for BLP or any other reason) to remove it because it is not sourced, then the article no longer supports membership in the category...and the category should then be removed. postdlf ( talk) 15:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
defining characteristicsper WP:CATV. Certes ( talk) 10:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone else think
Category:Racially motivated violence against European Americans may be a bad idea. It might be a better idea to set up a category with a clearer inclusions criteria like "Crimes committed by the Nation of Islam". For now, the category summary says This is a list of specific incidents, individual racists, or hate groups that have committed violent attacks against people because they were European American (or otherwise White people who reside in the United States of America).
I find the use of the "
European Americans" terminology in a racially-charged context particularly troubling. The terminology itself conflates race with nationality, and mixed race Europeans being considered "non-European" has a long and troubling history.
[5]
Seraphim System (
talk)
00:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
"White people? Caucasians?"
They are not interchangeable definitions for groups:
I'm thinking about creating a new Category:People with disputed ancestry claims to include people like these:
I would add a note to the category page like this:
Note:This category is for people who made claims about their own ancestry which have been the topic of substantial disputes, regardless of whether these debates have been settled.
I reckon this may be a controversial category, so I wanted to check here if anyone had input on inclusion criteria or had an idea for a better category name. Daask ( talk) 20:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot of instruction about where Paris belongs, but nothing really about where Category:Paris belongs. Because that category contains people, sport, crime, buildings, history, and a slew of stuff that are clearly not Category:Cities in France, ought Category:Paris not be included in Category:Cities in France, or frankly any of its current parent categories? Obviously, that's not what's intended (or is it?) but having categories having both articles and identically-titled categories included isn't ideal, especially when the categories are supposedly diffusing: contrast Category:States of the United States with Category:Ceremonial counties (of England). Which of these approaches is correct per WP? Or are we to assume that those looking for subdivisions of one country want one thing and those looking for subdivisions of another aren't? Harmony may never be achievable, but I would hope that we could come to consensus and, if necessary, amend the page to reflect the consensus. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Template talk:Main#Category namespace that may have relevance to certain sections of this guideline. Any constructive input would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I've had a disagreement with one editor who is very keen on project tagging large numbers of category pages, so I'm coming here for wider input. Should the mass creation of talk pages of categories (containing only wikiproject tags) be encouraged or discouraged?
The only advantage of tagging I could think is that the category will show up in the project's article alerts systems if the category is nominated at CfD, but I believe it's much more efficient to tag categories only if (and when) they do come up at CfD. Other than that, are there any reasons a project might want to track its categories? Given the large number of categories out there, and the lack of distinctions in quality or importance ratings, I'm not sure I see any point.
On the other hand, the existence of a category talk page can be a minor maintenance nuisance. First off, it adds an extra step in the process every time a category is renamed or deleted, though that's not really significant. A more important consideration is in the same direction as the reason why the {{ WikiProject Disambiguation}} banner should not be placed on dab pages: when making major changes to a category, it's helpful to see if there have been previous discussions on the talk page, and if talk pages aren't generally project tagged, then this involves simply glancing at the talk page link: if it's blue, then there might have been a discussion, if it's red, then there isn't. This wouldn't work if all these links are blue.
What should be the relative weight of the disadvantages and the benefits? Are there any considerations I'm not aware of? – Uanfala (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I would recommend that users take a look at Category:Category-Class articles and its subcategories (e.g. Category:Category-Class Architecture articles). Category tagging has happened on over 100,000 talk pages and has been happening for at least 12 years. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
|QUALITY_SCALE=subpage
, which means that the various page types are defined in the
custom class mask. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC){{
WPBannerMeta}}
, which in practice means all except about six of them. In short: you only need to worry about these two parameters for the talk pages of articles and the talk pages of disambiguation pages. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Just to note that one of the examples in the
Non-diffusing subcategories section appears to have been changed since the documentation was written. ‹The
template
Cat is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Western Europe does not include the countries - they are within the ‹The
template
Cat is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Western European countries subcat (although the {{
All included}}
template is still present).
Nzd
(talk)
04:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
All included}}
template from ‹The
template
Cat is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Western Europe.
Nzd
(talk)
09:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
We have standard templates to display links to decade and year categories for (dis)establishments, e.g. see Category:20th-century disestablishments in Germany.
Template:EstcatCountryCentury has a parameter to suppress the table for centuries where the detailed categories have been merged, e.g. Category:14th-century establishments in Luxembourg.
Where a country's name changed during the century, some editors have been making tailored tables, covering only the relevant years. I have been compiling a list of these at Template talk:EstcatCountryCentury. In some cases these only cover part of one or two decades.
Hike395 ( talk · contribs) recently deleted some of these tailored part-century tables with the edit comment "rm odd formatting in category space using AWB". I reinstated some of these, but then experimented with combining the years for different country names into one template to be used on the century category for both names.
Do editors find the partial-century table [6] or the multi-name table [7] more useful, or have any other suggestions for improvement? – Fayenatic London 20:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested regarding a possible issue of over-categorization. Please discuss at Talk:The Aversion Project#Over-categorization. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 23:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Koavf and I are disagreeing on the proper categorization of eponymous categories. See the discussion: Category talk:Black Francis#BRD discussion: Eponymous categorization. It has become clear that, regardless of whoever is right, there may be a lot of pages that would have to be changed. So the question is: Which categories should eponymous categories be placed in, and under what circumstances? — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 01:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Should a subject be redundantly included in main and subcats, or just the most-specific subcat without redundancy? Not factoring in exceptional cases.
As an example, say a rapper Soulja Boy. Should he be included in all three of:
Or just the last one? The project page is a little vague in it's wording about this topic of diffusion, I wish it were more straightforward.
Then there's also Category:American male rappers as well. There's just way too much redundant categorization for a lot of subjects. Is this encouraged or discouraged? DA1 ( talk) 14:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
Diffusecat}}
banner which means that if an article qualifies for any of its subcategories (these include ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American rappers and ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American male rappers), that article should not be in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:American rappers at all. Although ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American rappers does not also bear that banner, I really don't think that articles that qualify for ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American male rappers should be in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American rappers as well. This is, basically,
WP:DIFFUSE vs
WP:DUPCAT. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I realize that this has been brought up previously but I thought that I would bring it up again because I want to see some consistency on this project. There are a select few subcategories within Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States by state that only contain subcategories (NJ, RI, NY, MA) For Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey, is it wrong to place all entries within this category, like all of the other 46 states have included (2 redirects are currently within this category). My reasoning is that these unincorporated communities can be categorized both by county and state. So the reader has a choice of searching through either by the communities specifically sorted just in that county, or have a whole list within the entire state. See Category:Unincorporated communities in Pennsylvania that contains over 1400 entries. Each of these entries contain both the county category and state category. How come NJ and others should be treated differently? Tinton5 ( talk) 21:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed with regard to the disability categories that were recently added to the Health and appearance of Michael Jackson article, as seen here, here and here. Discussion is at Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson#Category. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 12:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories is a theoretically useful maintenance tool. It groups together all the disambiguation categories which are not currently empty (they should be empty).
However, there is a technical hitch. Non-empty dab categories are added to Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories only when the category page is purged. That doesn't happen unless the page is edited, which is rare.
So yesterday morning, Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories had only 18 subcats. But I ran an AWB job doing WP:NULLEDITs on all 1660 category pages which transclude Template:Category disambiguation ... and the result was 95 non-empty categories listed in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories.
I have been busy fixing the pages in ambiguous categories, so over 60 of them are now empty ... but they are still listed in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories.
The only way I can see to make Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories a usable maintenance tool is to have a bot regularly purge all 1660 category pages which transclude Template:Category disambiguation. I suggest that a weekly purge would be good.
I am sure that if I put in a request at WP:BOTREQ, some helpful bot-owner will put in a WP:BRFA request to run this job. However, BRFA won't approve it unless there is a consensus to to do so.
So what do others think? Would you support such a bot? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RfC about redirects to categories. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking for some feedback on when the proposed ω sort key would be applied. E.g. does this mean that categories like Category:WikiProject Volleyball would be under Category:Volleyball with this sortkey? If so, what does this mean for the division between administrative and content categories in the encyclopedia? Clarification would be handy here. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see:
Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RfC about redirects to categories
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys it says in point #5 that hyphens should be kept in sort values, so for -30- (The Wire), would the current {{DEFAULTSORT:30}} be incorrect? -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors interested in categorization are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board § Categorisation of Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne and SUBCAT. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Can someone just confirm that articles such as Boriša Đorđević should use {{DEFAULTSORT:Dordevic, Borisa}} rather than {{DEFAULTSORT:Djordjevic, Borisa}}? Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 07:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
{{DEFAULTSORT:Đorđević, Boriša}}
and see
the category page. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
17:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I think at this point there's a real need to provide some guidance about how this guideline should be enforced, specifically with regard to this section:
We have a recurring problem in my part of the world with one editor interpreting this to mean that he should, in each and every situation and without looking at the categories he's dealing with at all, remove every article this applies to from the parent category. This is frequently resulting in category changes that, if considered in context, objectively don't make sense, and for which literally the only possible justification that can be given is "but WP:SUBCAT told me I can!" If taken to a discussion in these cases, there may not be necessarily consensus on how to fix the category tree, but there is inevitably 100% agreement that we should not simply remove all the articles from the parent category.
This is frequently emerging in cases where an article is in both a parent and child category because there's some sort of issue with the category tree, probably requiring discussion as to what to do with it. These cases absolutely need sorting out - but they don't get sorted out without working out what the problem is and what the best way of dealing with it is, and probably a trip to WP:CFD to move things around and practically deal with the issue. A mass removal of articles from the parent category in these situations just exacerbates the existing situation and creates an incredible mess that someone will have to come along and clean up later while resolving the actual category issue. There's nothing in the text I quoted above that actually suggests to people to deal with it by universally removing all articles in this situation from the parent category, but because it's happening I really think it needs explicit amendment to make clear that it's not acceptable to do it 100% of the time without actually considering why the articles are there. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 02:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
"if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C."
"an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory)", and – paraphrasing to match Certes' example –
the article "Foo" need only be placed in "Category:Diplomats", not in both "Category:Diplomats" and "Category:Public servants". Because the first category (diplomats) is in the second category (public servants), readers are already given the information that Foo is a public servant by him being a diplomat.
it not clear to me that "NZ writers by century" intended to diffuse "NZ writers",– Sub-categories quite commonly diffuse their parent categories. This is explained in WP:CAT, in particular in Categorizing pages, Subcategorization and Diffusing large categories.
If I'm a reader looking for an NZ writer, does it follow that I should know I need to look in "NZ writers by century"?– The blue box at the top of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New Zealand writers, that says
Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category ... should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories.does suggest that the editors might not leave the articles directly in that category, and that the reader may need to look in subcategories. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
If our diplomat were also notable as a pianist ... It's the same with diplomat and treasury official.– It's not the same; the important difference (in the context of the WP:CAT) is that pianist is not a sub-cat of public servant, whereas diplomat and treasury official are.
add to Category:Diplomats from Wherever, then a second time for the treasury to add to Category:Public servants from Wherever– Without prejudice to the merits of your proposal or WP:CAT, this is explicitly contrary to the existing WP:CAT guidelines, so could you please state explicitly whether you think we should:
Add pages to multiple overlapping categories, and WP:Categorization#Categorizing pages says that
each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. I think we all understand the guidance but are unclear as to whether to apply it to each notable attribute individually or once to the subject as a whole. So far we've found nothing in writing to decide that question either way, so I'm hoping that a consensus will establish new guidance on this point. Certes ( talk) 14:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:CATDD advises us to– Interesting. CATDD is an information page not a policy or guideline; it's a very short summary of the guidelines, which take precedence. The link from "multiple overlapping categories" is to Category tree organization, whose first sentence is "Categories are organized as overlapping 'trees'", so I suggest that CATDD should probably say "multiple overlapping category trees".Add pages to multiple overlapping categories
So far we've found nothing in writing to decide that question either way– The three sentences from the guidelines that I quoted or paraphrased in my post of 08:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC) ("not normally placed directly in [parent]", "without duplication in parent categories above it", "not in both [child] and [parent]") seem fairly unambiguous to me. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I count as "uninvolved" or not, as I initiated one of the example conversations linked early in this section. I believe that Mitch's edits are intended to be helpful. However, they look to be done based on formulae and algorithms, not on reading individual articles. For example, Tony Ayers [21] [22] has been secretary of five departments according to the succession box at the bottom of the article, and of course had a career before reaching that level. Very few people would argue for a line in a succession box not indicating that a category would also be appropriate. Only the last two lines have categories specific for those roles. The other three are represented only as category:Australian public servants. Perhaps the "solution" was not just to remove the higher category, but to create and add the missing three categories for secretaries of Aboriginal Affairs, Social Security and Community Services. Reading the rest of the article, perhaps it should also be categorised as Teacher in Victoria and Prison officer. SO instead of just removing one category, the "solution" was to create two or three new ones and add all of those and two others to the article in exchange for the one to be removed. The problem was not that one high-level category was on the article, but that there were several gaps in the category structure. -- Scott Davis Talk 14:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm going through Category:Album covers and assessing non-free soundtrack cover images being used in various articles. The parent category is quite large; so, I'm wondering if it might be acceptable to create a new subcategory titled Category:Soundtrack album covers or something similar to make it easier to find these files. Apparently, non-free album cover filess are added to the parent category each time {{ Non-free album cover}} is used. Will this be affected is a new subcategory is created for specific types of album cover art? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
Non-free album cover}}
to have a new parameter - say |soundtrack=yes
; or create another template to be used instead - say {{
Non-free soundtrack album cover}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
A follow-on from this discussion, here.
Briefly: given the relative stability in recent months of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:20th-century male writers and similar categories for writers (and the longstanding stability of categories for male actors by century), I've begun creating and populating similar categories for male musicians and artists by century. My argument is one that's been kicking around for a few years now, in some guise or other; we have women categorized a certain way, and there's no reason we shouldn't be treating male subjects the same way. I've been treading relatively slowly, but haven't really met much formal pushback before the linked discussion. Hence opening this discussion here.
My feeling: we should have men-by-century categories for many of the professions for which there are women-by-century categories. We've got categories for men by profession and country, at least in many of the cultural disciplines, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extend it to by-century as well. Others may disagree: I'd be interested in hearing more discussion. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 21:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just created Template:Uw-redcat, and added it to Template:Single notice links.
This is to warn users who add pages to no-existent categories (see WP:REDNOT), causing them to be listed at Special:WantedCategories. On average, 50–100 such redlinks appear every day, and it is nearly a full-time job to keep the list clear.
So far, there has been no standardised warning for this. I hope that the wording I have used makes sense.
I opened a discussion on it at WT:UW#Template:Uw-redcat, and suggest that any further discussion should take place there. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been discussed before (and I've read the recent discussion above), but I can't seem to find a good answer. My specific question is whether the kebab article should be in Category:Levantine cuisine, and/or the geographical subcategories Category:Lebanese cuisine, Category:Syrian cuisine, Category:Jordanian cuisine, etc. It's also a general question about how to categorize food items and dishes, and similar things that are found in multiple geographical areas.
This guideline says each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs
and
WP:SUBCAT says an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it
. What does "logically belong" mean, and how low is "as low as possible"? Kebab dishes aren't exclusively Lebanese for example, so if "as low down as possible" is meant to be the category that includes all relevant subcategories, then probably it would have to be
Category:World cuisine.
It seems more likely that it means that a dish should be included in all "Category:Country cuisine" categories that notably feature it, and not in any "Category:Region cuisine" categories that are supercategories of those countries. In other words, the kebab article should not be in Category:Levantine cuisine. It should also be taken out of Category:Balkan cuisine and added instead to each of the 11 geographical subcategories (Albanian, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Kosovan, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Romanian, Serbian, and Turkish), and similarly for Category:South Asian cuisine. What about Category:Arab cuisine?
This would imply that Category:Levantine cuisine shouldn't have any articles about specific dishes listed in it, and that the 100+ dishes currently in the category should be duplicated and moved down into each of the constituent country subcategories. The same would apply to all "Category:Region cuisine" categories; for example no specific dish articles should be present in the categories Category:Mediterranean cuisine, Category:Middle Eastern cuisine, Category:Asian cuisine, etc., or even in Category:World cuisine.
Is this correct? It doesn't seem to reflect current practice very well, as most of the "Category:Region cuisine" categories have many dishes listed directly under them, and often at the same time in the subcategories. It would be a big change to actually enforce the without duplication in parent categories above it
part of the guideline. I'm also not sure how desirable that is. But it's inconsistent; looking at the list in
Category:Middle Eastern cuisine, one would certainly expect to see the kebab article in there (there are a number of specific types of kebab listed). I can't figure out if I should add it, or remove all the specific dish articles.
It might also cause issues with verification, as the articles may have references to a dish being "Levantine", but not specifically mention the constituent countries. Are we sure that all such dishes are present in Cypriot cuisine for example? This is even more troublesome with the larger categories - do we actually have "Category:Country cuisine" categories to cover every country in Asia? Can we accurately determine to which specific countries in Asia that oolong, cocopandan syrup, and mochi - and kebab - do or don't belong? What countries exactly make up the Middle East?
One more example, Adana kebab is in Category:Cuisine of Adana and also in the parent Category:Turkish cuisine. Since it's served all over Turkey, it doesn't seem like it should be restricted only to the former category, while it wouldn't make sense to leave it out.
There's also the question of categories themselves, for example Category:Syrian cuisine is a subcategory of Category:Levantine cuisine, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Middle Eastern cuisine. It would seem then that Category:Syrian cuisine should be removed from Category:Middle Eastern cuisine. Currently Category:Lebanese cuisine is not in Category:Middle Eastern cuisine; again I can't figure out whether I should add it, or remove the other Levantine countries instead. Also, Category:Kebabs is in Category:Middle Eastern cuisine, but not in Category:Asian cuisine or any of the south/central/east Asian cuisine subcategories. Should it go in any of those, or in Category:North African cuisine, or should it be removed from Category:Middle Eastern cuisine and placed "as low down as possible" in each and every of the Middle Eastern (and Asian, African, European, and even the Americas') "Category:Country cuisine" categories?
Any comments or pointers to previous relevant discussions or consensus are appreciated, thanks. -- IamNotU ( talk) 17:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there any specific policy or protocol for placing pages within a parent category and subcategory? For instance, you'll see in Category:Public high schools in the United States by state, where N.J. is the only state that does not contain ALL public high school pages (only a subcategory of them broken down by county listing), along with categories with places of worship, municipalities, unincorporated communities, etc. They are only organized by county. Shouldn't all pages be included in these categories (hence this template) since pretty much all of the other US states follow this practice? Only a couple of editors are against this since it was discussed previously. I find it useful for the reader to have the option to view listings by both county and statewide. Tinton5 ( talk) 04:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I've submitted an RfC re: the categorization of all works (albums, songs) by artists by genre.
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre.
Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the may deficiencies of Wikimedia's crude category system is that it does not automatically generate a table of contents for the category. Editors have to manually add a TOC if it is needed.
So a few weeks ago, I created Template:CatAutoTOC, which generates a table of contents on a category page if the category size exceeds a certain threshold. It is now used on about 35,000 categories, nearly all via category header templates.
The size thresholds I applied are:
However, I just noticed that {{
Category TOC}} says it should not be used for categories containing less than 200 pages.
One way or another, that discrepancy needs to be resolved.
I can see the case for the threshold of 200, because it is one pageful, and a TOC is arguably un-needed on one page. Personally, I think that a TOC is still useful on categories in the 100–200 page range, but that may just be an oddity of mine.
What do others think?
What should the size thresholds be? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
So, I'm thinking particularly of categories like Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States (sorted with the key "-") and Category:Canadian emigrants to the United States (sorted with the key "+") that are subcategories of Category:American people of Canadian descent, even though a significant portion of those expatriates and immigrants aren't/weren't U.S. citizens. Should the subcategorization be replaced with {{ category see also}} instead? Or maybe it's enough that they all share the same parent category Category:Canada–United States relations? During the years I've noticed lots of reverting categories back and forth ( [23], [24]), which is why I'd love to see a conclusion to this inconsistency. -- Kliituu ( talk) 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Kliituu, Necrothesp, and Rathfelder: I think that there are three issues here:
There's still a little tweaking to do, but it's nearly ready for rollout. It takes no parameters, and when placed on a bilateral human migration category, it creates a navbox for the categories for descent, emigrants, expatriates and expatriate sportspeople between the two countries.
To demonstrate it I did a few tests on some pages, and self-reverted:
I'd really welcome feedback on whether this is a good idea, and if so whether it needs tweaking.
Also pinging some other editors whose feedback I'd value: @ Oculi, Black Falcon, Marcocapelle, Fayenatic london, and Ymblanter:. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't actually see a lot of point in retaining the expatriate categories. As far as I'm concerned, an emigrant is someone who moves to a country and intends to stay there permanently or more or less permanently (e.g. some people emigrate to Britain from the Caribbean, stay for decades and to all intents and purposes become British, but then retire back to the Caribbean; they're still emigrants, even though they eventually return to their country of birth), even if they don't actually do so, or who ends up staying permanently even if they didn't originally intend to. It has nothing to do with actual citizenship. I'm not sure what an expatriate is, as it has different definitions depending on context. Is it a person who lives in a country for a bit? So what? The trouble is, the term "emigrant" often tends to be used of people from developing countries and "expatriate" of people from developed countries, even if their situations are pretty much identical. If we do retain the two separate types of category, however, then I definitely don't think it's worth using both on one article. If someone ends up staying in a country then the emigrant category is sufficient. I also do think both emigrants and expatriates should be categorised under descent for navigational reasons. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC about whether to standardise on the "Z" spelling in descriptive category names, i.e. to use "Organization" in all cases. I estimate that this affects the naming of about ten thousand categories.
See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC:_spelling_of_"organisation"/"organization"_in_descriptive_category_names. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to create a redirect category page, but it doesn't work. The redirect page is Talk:Whites only, but the category that is displayed is Category:NA-Class Civil Rights Movement articles instead of Category:Redirect-Class Civil Rights Movement articles. What am I doing incorrectly? Mitchumch ( talk) 23:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
|QUALITY_SCALE=extended
won't make the template recognise |class=redirect
, because it's not one of the seven classes listed at
Template:WPBannerMeta#Assessment. It needs to be either the subpage or inline method; I can do it for you, if I have a clear mandate from the WikiProject. However, I go out to work soon, I can pick this up at (say) 16:00 (UTC), bot not likely to be any earlier. BTW it shouldn't be necessary to explictly set |class=Redirect
because the class is autodetected - if
the WikiProject banner is not set up for Redirect-class, it defaults to NA-class. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)|QUALITY_SCALE=extended
to |QUALITY_SCALE=subpage
just like this; (b) on
the documentation, alter |QUALITY_SCALE=extended
to |QUALITY_SCALE=subpage
(so that it matches the main template). --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
For
WP:DRAFTNOCAT please add an info that class=Draft in WikiProject templates on "Draft talk" pages works as expected. While at it the section could also state that any {{
stub}}
template might violate DRAFTNOCAT, unless it is smart enough to have no effect outside of the article namespace, e.g., {{
authority control}}
is smart, but {{
US-record-producer-stub}}
is
not smart and caused
havoc on my first draft. –
84.46.52.44 (
talk)
16:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
|class=Draft
on a WikiProject banner template in Draft talk: space - when used outside the main Talk: space, almost all (there are five or six exceptions) WikiProject banners will autodetect the class when there is no |class=
parameter. Same with |importance=
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
WPBS|blp=yes|1=…}}
. –
84.46.53.95 (
talk)
04:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Hi. Currently, Category:Categories requiring diffusion has 6,457 subcategories, many of which have nothing to diffuse currently and together making it hard to find what needs work. As early as 2010 it was remarked that the category itself requires diffusion ( Category talk:Categories requiring diffusion#Subcategories?). I'd like to suggest that all categories that only have 1 subcategory, and have no direct pages in them, be removed, which would reduce it by a few hundred. Other suggestions include adding a switch in Template:Category diffuse to only add the category once there are a certain number of pages that need to be sorted into sub categories. Thoughts? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 03:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't work with cats much but is there a quick way to categorize or segregate pages into one cat that are in Category:All portals but not in Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion? It would need to be something dynamic and automated because no one wants to manually tag all these pages. Both are automatically populated but with over 1/3 of the namespace at MFD it is getting harder to identify pages that should be checked. Legacypac ( talk) 07:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I nominated Category:Films produced by B. F. Zeidman for deletion as a test case ( Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17). It was declined "without prejudice against a fresh wider nomination". I contend that, with a very few exceptions (e.g. Val Lewton), producers don't leave much of an imprint on the films they work on, and thus the vast majority of these categories are WP:NONDEFINING. How do I make a "wider nomination" without manually adding literally hundreds of entries to a mass Afd? Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
without manually adding literally hundreds of entries to a mass Afd. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
How do we apply CATDEF? What if a category is not commonly and consistently used by reliable sources to describe something, but it is a type of category that is often used? How does WP:COP fit in: is this a list of categories we should generally use, or that we may use for certain articles when appropriate? Big questions... but, more specifically, input at Talk:Michael_Gove#People_educated_at_Robert_Gordon's_College would be useful. (My view is apparent there!) Bondegezou ( talk) 21:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
You’re just not reading CATDEF the way most editors approach it. You should also read WP:OC, which says that “Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic.” (emphasis added) So as I said above, we don’t have to keep asking that question for every article once a category exists, and it makes absolutely no sense to do that in the context of education categories. Really even in the context of a category like one for chess players, it’s better understood as a question of inclusion criteria (defining what is meant by the category to determine who belongs in it) rather than asking the “definingness” question for every article. Maybe that will resolve your personal dilemma here, but regardless you have no basis for removing applicable and valid categories from articles. postdlf ( talk) 12:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I had a delve into the archives to see if discussion around the time the current guideline wording was agreed could shed further light on the matter. The current WP:CATDEF wording came from Uniplex in this edit on 29 Sep 2011, following discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Archive_14#proposing_adding_to_categorize_by_defining_characteristics and at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization/Archive_9#Non-defining_vs._trivial_clarification_proposed. The word "defining" had come earlier: it's in the very first draft of WP:OC (23 Nov 2006), with this (broader?) phrasing: "If you could easily leave something out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic." Back in May 2006, this guideline had a simpler formulation, including, "An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." Bondegezou ( talk) 12:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to know if all wikipedia titles are assigned to at least one semantic category (e.g., proteins, surgical procedures). If not how to find wikipedia titles that do not have any semantic category?
Emijenne ( talk) 15:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
{{
uncategorised}}
- it's not automatic. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
11:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)I am seeking approval for a bot to bypass double category redirects. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 17. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be welcome at Talk:Outline of Esperanto. -- Beland ( talk) 05:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
More eyeballs requested over here: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 27#Category:Works by Bella Thorne and here: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 3#Category:Works by Jimmy Somerville where there is a particularly WP:LAME edit war is kicking off. Mostly between two editors, who are doing a bizarre sort of opposed tag-team deletion, tagging the opposite categories.
Jimmy Somerville is a clearly notable musician with an extensive career and back-cataglogue. Clearly we should represent them here, and through categorization, but how? We have the following:
This is three levels of categorization, which many would see as too many – certainly for this few members. As I read WP:OCEPON, we should have "Works by ..." but not "<Artist>", unless we have more content needing it. The albums / songs split is perhaps a little verbose, but if we have that (it seems justified for a case this size) then we should still have "Works by ..." and the artist page should be in that.
There are half-a-dozen similar artists all listed here, and we need clarity in our general guidance first, not recurrent edit-warring item by item. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, regarding
WP:SORTKEY where it says Hyphens, apostrophes and periods/full stops are the only punctuation marks that should be kept in sort values. The only exception is the apostrophe in names beginning with O', which should be removed. For example, Eugene O'Neill is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Oneill, Eugene}}. All other punctuation marks should be removed.
- if only those 3
punctuation marks are kept, what happens with titles such as these:
! (Donnie Vie album),
"@",
( ) (album),
? (XXXTentacion album), [[/ (book)]] (valid redirect link, but breaks text here) and also
...Baby One More Time (song). The guideline was also quite on other signs such as these:
@ !*,
$ (Mark Sultan album),
^ (math),
* (arithmetic),
÷ (album),
& (album),
~ (iamthemorning album),
¿Dónde Está Santa Claus?. Would appreciate any help here. --
Gonnym (
talk)
21:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I found a disambiguation page in an article category, and wanted to look up the rules about it. But I found it difficult, since there is no mention in this article, nor in Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization nor Help:Category. The relevant info is at the very end of the Disambiguation article, at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Categories ( WP:DBC). I think it would be helpful to have a pointer to that here. I thought about putting this:
===Disambiguation pages=== {{see|Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Categories}} Disambiguation pages should not normally be placed in article content categories, but in disambiguation categories only.
between the "Articles" and the "Files/images" sections, but I wasn't sure if that would be the best approach... -- IamNotU ( talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
What's the best practice for the "by century" cats for people who span centuries? If a person was born in the 18th century and died in the 19th, do you put them in both Category:18th-century foos and Category:19th-century foos? Or just pick one? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Usually in both, as long as they were active in both of them. Though in categories by occupation, such as Category:18th-century writers, they should only be added to the century in which they were active in their field. Dimadick ( talk) 19:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are people allowed to create orphan categories? See Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories There are thousands of them. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
After I cleaned up regular articles, only three articles are still using <categorytree> tags, all outlines: Outline of German language, Outline of Esperanto, and Outline of Korean language. Normally I would expect outlines to have their own content independent from categories. Klarst, who has edited all three articles, has objected on Talk:Outline of Esperanto, saying that they are useful, but it's unclear to me why or whether these particular outlines are special. How do other editors feel about this? (This tag causes the listing of pages from the category to be transcluded into the outline.) -- Beland ( talk) 07:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Were these "not always baseball players from Foo is Fooian" edits legitimate? Even the category explanation on most of those categories says following: "This category is for Fooian baseball players who currently play or have played in Major League Baseball." 85.76.163.182 ( talk) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Can we get some opinions at Talk:Empathy/Archive 3#Removed category:autism? A permalink or the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised by the dispute over the inclusion of some cats on this article and would appreciate some more eyes and input. See Talk:The_Americans#Spy_thriller/drama_category_dispute. Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
There are many categories that use the turn of phrase committed suicide in the category title. I opened this RfC to establish if there is a general consensus to stop using this term which some believe is disparaging and has fallen out of favor.
RFC: The term committed suicide should not be used in category titles unless there is good reason to do so instead of alternatives such as: suicide / died by suicide / died by apparent suicide / killed themselve(s) or other alternatives. We can discuss case by case later. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs
17:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus here that we should not require this type of alternative language. On this much, even OP as the sole supporter seems to agree. Although, as before, there is no policy mandating nor prohibiting any particular phrasing on any particular article, there is also a fairly broad agreement that "committed" remains the more common phrasing. Otherwise, WP:COIN is the proper venue for discussing conflicts of interest, and such a discussion is not central to the issue of whether the community has broad support for this proposal, which it does not.--- Coffeeand crumbs 19:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
However, in 2015 one in eight articles still used this outdated, largely inaccurate and stigmatised phrase.[34] (emphasis added)
The phrase ‘committed suicide’ should not be used because it implies criminality, thereby contributing to the stigma experienced by those who have lost a loved one to suicide and discouraging suicidal individuals from seeking help.[35] by World Health Organization
“Attempted suicide”, “took their own life”, “died by suicide” and “ended their life” were however considered most acceptable. We argue that academic and media guidelines should promote use of these phrases.[36]
Suicide is a cause of death. Do we ever say that someone ‘committed cancer’ or ‘committed heart failure’, even when they may have lived lifestyles that contributed to such diseases (for example, smoking or having a high fat diet)? Even suggesting this sounds ludicrous, and yet every day we see such examples in relation to suicide. So, let us commit to being vigilant and challenge the use of stigmatising language whenever we hear it used in connection with suicide.[37]
They did not commit anything" is patently false. They commit suicide. It's the same meaning as the way we say "engineers commit code everyday" UNLESS you deliberately decide to give it another meaning. You're advocating for Wikipedia to help promote a fledgling campaign that sought to abolish usage of the phrase. The first link in your statement above stated what actual this is all about in no uncertain terms: " By changing the way we speak..." No, Wikipedia will not change the way people speak. That's no Wikipedia's business. Wikipedia is not a laboratory for forcibly testing emerging social changes like these. Giving that the community has explicitly rejected this change in various RfCs and here, honestly this is getting into territory of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. – Ammarpad ( talk) 06:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"Attempted" is fine...was a response to Ammarpad's assertion that
"attempted" is wrong too, independently of "commit". It is not an opinion on the use of "commit". Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
..."Wilson killed Brown", no one is confused that the killing was intentional.— I suggest that many/most convictions for manslaughter would invalidate that assertion - depending on your legal jurisdiction, "manslaughter" typically means killing someone (as a result of some other illegal action, but) without the intent to kill. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
"Wilson killed Brown", no one is confused that the killing was intentional, which to me implies that "Wilson killed Brown" is unambiguous about intention to kill. My point was that "killed" (Brown, or self) does not unambiguously denote intent - manslaughter is one example of killing someone without intent to kill. So saying that someone "killed X" could mean "killed intentionally" or it could mean "killed accidentally". Thus "killed themself" is ambiguous (it covers accidents) and less informative than "suicided". Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
suicided sounds and looks every bit as stupid as homicided— On the contrary "suicide" is a verb, and has been since the mid-19th century, according to SOED, so "suicided" is a perfectly legitimate conjugation. "Homicide" is only a noun, not a verb (in English), so "homicided" is not a word. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Historical meaning of the verb, "commit" and its association with suicide:
commit, v. (transitive) II. To do something wrong; to perpetrate. 9. a. To carry out (a reprehensible act); to perpetrate (a crime, sin, offence, etc.). Cf. to commit suicide at Phrases 6.
Phrases 6. transitive. to commit suicide: to end one's own life intentionally; to kill oneself. Also figurative and in extended use. Cf. sense 9a. Historically, suicide was regarded as a crime in many societies. Laws against suicide existed in English common law until 1961.
Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. (2015), https://oed.com/view/Entry/37160
Arguments for NOT using "commit suicide" are linked below. I post these sources simply as a point of reference, not to support a wholesale change in how Wikipedia talks about people who committed suicide.
Suicide and language: Why we shouldn't use the ‘C’ word https://www.psychology.org.au/publications/inpsych/2013/february/beaton
Language Matters: Why We Don't Say "Committed Suicide" https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-matters-committed-suicide
Why I Don’t Say My Son ‘Committed’ Suicide https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/October-2018/Why-I-Don-t-Say-My-Son-%E2%80%98Committed-Suicide
Commit* to change? A call to end the publication of the phrase ‘commit* suicide’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341764/
Suicide and Language https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/suicideandlanguage/
The language of suicide http://eprints.worc.ac.uk/1990/1/language_of_suicide.pdf
Suicide and language https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1229556/pdf/cmaj_159_3_239.pdf
Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom ( talk) 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I fear the pressure to avoid "suicide" is part of a push to keep everything subjectless and in passive voice to avoid the possibility of casting blame on anyone for doing anything offensiveis quite concerning—I usually feel grief rather than personal offence in response to a suicide. Hopefully I've misunderstood. Additionally, I feel that some arguments are a bit disingenuous. Surely we all understood that "commit" has multiple meanings in different contexts and that the meaning in the phrase "committed suicide" is, to quote Wiktionary, a derivation from the meaning
To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault. (Take a look at the bits on etymology at Suicide terminology#Controversy over use of "commit" and "committed".) That's what makes the term loaded, non-neutral and unsuitable for Wikipedia. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The argument that "commit suicide" is a loaded term purely because of the historical usage [...] is a linguistic fallacy— It may well be but that's an argument I didn't make—note the word "purely". I wrote plenty of other things relating to why the term is loaded; taken in conjunction, they form a coherent argument.
but other uses of the word "commit" are completely irrelevant to this discussion— Ding ding ding! Precisely the point I made. In all seriousness, it is only when you look at the whole comment that you see the full argument I am making. Please don't cherry-pick and strawman me. — Bilorv ( talk) 10:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
the meaning in the phrase "committed suicide" is, to quote Wiktionary, a derivation from the meaning To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault. (Take a look at the bits on etymology at Suicide terminology#Controversy over use of "commit" and "committed".) That's what makes the term loaded, non-neutral and unsuitable for Wikipedia.I don't think it's accurate to say that I'm "strawmanning" you or cherry-picking your comments. If to you that sentence doesn't mean that part of your reason is based on the etymology of "commit", then it's not my fault for misunderstanding you, but your fault for writing the opposite of what you meant. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 01:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Standard article naming conventions apply. Presumably that includes everything listed in WP:TITLE, including WP:UCRN. The most commonly used name is generally preferred. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 02:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Standard article naming conventions apply; in particular, do not capitalize regular nouns except when they come at the beginning of the title, which I read to mean grammatical conventions of article titles apply to category titles. That said, I wasn't around and haven't looked back to see if there's past discussion to explain the intent of that line. Cheers. Ajpolino ( talk) 03:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Given the overwhelming number of sources recommending "committed suicide" as the significantly inferior phrasing, are there any sources to support that "committed suicide" is a superior choice?
Wikipedia tends use technically correct terms and formal language unless they are so unclear that it be misunderstood by a reader. Are there any reliable sources that state that "died by suicide" is likely to be misunderstood?
Are there any other examples where Wikipedia deliberately uses a term that is recommended against by all professional, academic, clinical, journalistic, legal, military organisations?
If "committed suicide" is considered a neutral term, what are the sources that support this? Literally all sources I can find specifically contest that assertion.
In a general Google search: "committed suicide" = 20M, "died by suicide" = 10M, "killed him/herself" = 12M which are not huge differences. Is this sufficient to overrule all other arguments?
Similarly, are there any reliable sources that state that "died of suicide" is a euphamism?
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 03:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Strongly 'died by suicide' to prevent suicidal contagion The reason a growing consensus in the psychological and media communities to use the term "died by suicide" is emerging is to prevent suicidal contagion. When suicide is mentioned in the media, it can lead to suicidal contagion among readers if not handled properly. Suicidal contagion is well documented and occurred in the aftermath of Robin Williams' death among many others. Suicides were 10% higher for four months after he died. It is recommended that media outlets do not focus on the methods of death or sensationalizes the suicide. It is also recommended to mention hotline numbers and other ways to get support if one is in crisis. [1] [2] As a person who has experienced depression myself, I don't want to research this deeply to keep my own mental health afloat, so I won't add many sources, but there are many. The consensus among medical/psychological organizations and media outlets is growing stronger. Wikipedia should follow suit. - TenorTwelve ( talk) 08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Publication | Articles that pointedly avoid "committed suicide" and use "died by suicide" |
---|---|
CNN | [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] |
The Wall Street Journal | [55] [56] [57] |
The New York Times | [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] |
NBC News | [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] |
CBS News | [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] |
ABC News | [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] |
NPR | [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] |
Variety | [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] |
The Cut by New York (magazine) | [92] [93] |
Other U.S. | [94] [95] |
Other UK | [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] |
Other Canadian | [104] [105] [106] [107] |
Other Australian | [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] |
Just some material for review. "Died by suicide" seems perfectly fine for all these organizations above that use it very COMMONly. --- Coffeeand crumbs 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Most of the sister categories use the form Category:deaths from X [114], so why not "Category:Deaths from suicide"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Support using alternatives. Here in the UK Wikipedia stands out as using out-moded terminology that makes you look less authoritative. The National Union of Journalists (surely an organisation that is against self-censorship) recommends against using "committed". NCISH (an influential research organisation into suicide in the UK) does not use "committed". There's also a problem with the word "suicide" because that's a legal term and it's hard to compare usage internationally: some deaths are counted as suicide in the UK, where the same death would not be counted as suicide in the US. "Killed themselves" is clearer, easier to understand, and works across different legal jurisdictions. DanBCDanBC ( talk) 16:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I found that this edit removed the tau with reference to WP:CAT#T and "templates are not to be placed in content categories". I think the removal is not merited by that and I would like to reinstate it.
As far as I see the removal wasn't discussed at the time. Tau has been mentioned before (I think 2012 was most relevant), but always kept.
First of all, the guideline page says "and occasional exceptions may apply", so there is room for a minor conflict. Secondly, usage of tau isn't limited to content categories. Thirdly, there are cases where "content" should be a valid categorization for templates. Finally, the term content categories isn't saying that other category types can't be based on content nor that they may not contain several types of pages.
Rejected An option is referring to a new subsection "clarification" or "exception" in WP:CAT#T: "There are cases where template content makes a useful categorization. An example would be error tracking categories, where templates and articles may appear both. Note that this example is an administrative category, for content categories it is rarely meaningful to include templates."
To make the text more clear, I instead suggest to replace the first paragraph with the text used elsewhere. It's repetitive to have it several times, but it makes the point as intended.
Completed " Templates are not articles, and thus do not belong in content categories. It is however a recommendation to place them in template categories – subcategories of Category:Wikipedia templates – to assist when looking for templates of a certain type. For example, Template:Schubert string quartets is categorized under Category:String quartets by composer templates, which should be a subcategory of Category:Music navigational boxes (type) but Template:Schubert string quartets should not be categorized under Category:Franz Schubert or Category:String quartets (content)."
Rejected "Pages in the template namespace (including template documentation) may also appear in maintenance categories and other administrative categories. When a category contains pages from several namespaces, it may be useful to sort each namespace separately, see § Sort keys."
Reading the last part as more general than for templates only, it could be stated in the section " Wikipedia administrative categories" instead, like this:
Completed "In maintenance categories and other administrative categories, pages may be included regardless of type. To sort each namespace separately, see § Sort keys. E.g. in an error tracking category it makes sense to group templates separately, because addressing the errors there may require different skills compared to fixing an ordinary article."
Completed To conclude the change, the tau is reinstated in sort order section, and a disclaimer may be added:
Completed Several Greek letters are instead used to group each type of page separately from other types (in categories that contain pages from several namespaces) and sort them after other pages. "Note: Not all of these types are suitable for inclusion in content categories. For one-type categories, such as template categories, greek letter grouping is not useful."
@ Woodensuperman: Agree? JAGulin ( talk) 15:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA#Noongar sub-category for places with Noongar sites, on the inclusion of some places directly in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Noongar, and whether a more specific subcategory would be appropriate. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I have come across a Category issue that I don't understand so am hopeful all you Cat. mavens out there can educate me on this. For instance, recently Category:American country singer-songwriters was removed from the Hank Williams biographical article but was added to the Category:Hank Williams. It seems to me that the man himself should be in the singer-songwriter Category rather than having this Category be a sub-cat to the subject's biographical Category but maybe not... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 19:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
This is all incorrect because you’re talking about the article that defines the eponymous category. The article should be in the same categories as the corresponding category. postdlf ( talk) 00:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears this discussion and the previous one above are related. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 07:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Michael basically said that the article should only be in the eponymous category"– I wrote nothing of the sort. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 14:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also."If only one member of that subcategory belongs to the parent category, the parent category is inappropriate. Rathfelder's edits at Category:Johann Sebastian Bach, Category:Ludwig van Beethoven, Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Category:William Shakespeare ought to be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 00:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Rathfelder:, you know for a fact that I also disapprove of edits like this. Why are you choosing just one of the categories that Merge Records is in to add to Category:Merge Records? Why not all of them? This is arbitrary and against consensus. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'd like to start by saying that database reports exist to serve editors. A page or category being listed in a report might mean that action is needed, it might mean that there's an edge case, it might mean that the report criteria need to be adjusted, or it could simply be an informative or statistical report where no action is warranted at all.
I recently changed the criteria for the uncategorized categories ( configuration) database report, with Rathfelder, based on my understanding of the English Wikipedia's categorization system. After skimming this discussion, I would like some clarity about categories such as Category:Barack Obama. Are Michael Bednarek and Oculi saying that Category:Barack Obama is inappropriately categorized? I ask because, if this view is correct, we probably want a miscategorized categories ( configuration) database report or similar to address this category and others. However, if Category:Barack Obama is appropriately categorized in categories such as Category:Presidents of the United States (along with all the other presidents), how is this category distinguishable from a category such as Category:Go Daddy? Or Category:Britney Spears, which is categorized in Category:Spears family. Is this incorrect?
Given that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of examples of categories being categorized ( arbitrary edit from September 2015), there doesn't seem to be clear consensus on this issue one way or another at present. I hunted down this discussion after noticing that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars decided that a compromise position would be making categories such as Category:Wikipedia categories named after British musical groups no longer hidden. (cc: VegaDark, who's my personal category authority) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 07:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that the distinction between topic categories and set categories is lost on many editors, and the guidance says explicitly that it can be ignored. For example Category:Harare contains all sorts of stuff, most of which is not a capital city. Category:Humans contains of lots of articles not about humans. Category:Walt Disney contains all sorts of stuff about the company, not the man. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
distinction between topic categories and set categories is lost on many editors. Perhaps, the page Wikipedia:Categorization should be improved? It refers to "topic categories" four times before giving the definition in the fifth out of six sections. Should section "Category tree organization" or at least the paragraph
There are two main kinds of category ...be moved up? Getting readers acquintated with the concepts earlier in the page might be helpful. — andrybak ( talk) 05:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that categories should almost always be included in some other category. Category:Merge Records should certainly be categorized somewhere; though I find it excessive to suggest that it must be in all of Merge Records' categories. Perhaps there should be a guideline for which categories contain eponymous categories, and which do not. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I was just wondering about this, and glad to find there was an existing discussion. But sad to see that there's no clear answer. Having read this discussion (and
a related earlier one), I think I'm with Michael Bednarek in the "Baracktrema obamai should not be categorized as a US president" camp.
Here's a question for
Rathfelder,
Power~enwiki, or anyone else on the other side of the debate: why is it intrinsically bad for a category like
Category:Barack Obama or
Category:Walt Disney to have no parent category? Is it just the maintenance issue of no longer being able to easily find problematic categories by looking at orphans? If so, couldn't this be addressed by modifying the db report to exclude descendants of
Category:Eponymous categories?
Colin M (
talk)
04:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I'm with Michael Bednarek in the "Baracktrema obamai should not be categorized as a US president" camp: inclusion of "Baracktrema obamai" in Category:Barack Obama does not mean it is a US president. Parent category to child category relation does not always imply inclusion of articles or subcategories over category boundaries. Insect "Baracktrema obamai", named after the president, is obviously related to the topic "Barack Obama". And the insect species is not part of a set "Presidents of the United States". The distinction between "topic categories" and "set categories" is described in Wikipedia:Categorization § Category tree organization. — andrybak ( talk) 06:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also.. Category:Presidents of the United States is, as you say, a set category. If Category:Barack Obama is to be placed in that category, then all or almost all pages in Category:Barack Obama should belong to the set Category:Presidents of the United States (i.e. they should be presidents). However, of the hundreds of pages that recursively belong to Category:Barack Obama, only one is a POTUS. So, that seems like a violation of WP:SUBCAT. Where am I going wrong? Colin M ( talk) 19:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Parent category being a set is not inherited by Category:Barack ObamaIs this notion (that, semantically, topic categories shouldn't be considered to inherit from set categories) written somewhere in policy? It seems like it would make queries on set categories a lot more complicated. If, for example, I want to generate a list of all articles on novelists, I can't just do a deep category search on Category:Novelists, I need to instead recursively search the category but skip any eponymous categories (or more generally, any topic categories). Colin M ( talk) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
So where's the problem there?There is no problem with the two scenarios you present. I don't know what I wrote would have made you think that I objected to them. They are irrelevant to the very specific issue I am raising, which concerns putting topic categories inside set categories.
has there been confusion on the part of readers, or something?Not that I'm aware of. I think that only a miniscule fraction of one percent of our readers, to borrow a phrase from you, pay any attention to categories, tbh. But I think this whole discussion (and the similar ones that can be found in the archives, on other talk pages, and in back-and-forth edit summaries) is evidence of confusion on the part of editors, who disagree on how to handle these situations, with no clear answer to be found in policy. Colin M ( talk) 02:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
There is not a clear distinction between topic categories and set categories, and the policy says clearly that this is OK. So most editors are unaware of the distinction that gets some people here so excited. And most readers can see why creatures or places named after famous people are put in their eponymous category. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Why the links WP:TOPICCAT and WP:SETCAT are not working? They only link to the correct section if I click on the link available on the redirect page. CamiloCBranco ( talk) 09:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
redirect=no
to the url. You are already at the place they normally link to so there isn't much reason to click them unless you want to see their redirect page. If you want to test that they go to the right place then click the link on the redirect page.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
11:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I thought I'd bring this up here, since it's a fairly substantial change, and the talk pages for individual categories probably don't have many watchers.
So there's a large family of stand-alone list articles that are organized by country (e.g. Grading systems by country, List of palaces, International availability of McDonald's products), and I think it would be useful to capture this property in a category. Furthermore, because there are so many articles like this, it would be useful to divide them into subclasses such as:
There kind of exists a category like the one I described above: Category:Lists by country. And there exist categories under that (actually grandchildren, via Category:Lists by topic and country) analogous to the example subclasses I gave above: Category:Law lists by country, Category:Lists of buildings and structures by country
If we treat Category:Lists by country as containing list articles that are organized by country, the problem comes with violations of WP:SUBCAT (similar to the long discussion above). Category:Lists by country contains a bunch of child categories such as Category:Abkhazia-related lists, Category:Afghanistan-related lists, Category:Albania-related lists, etc. none of which contain lists organized by country.
This is also true of the grandchild categories like Category:Law lists by country, which contains child categories like Category:Australian law-related lists, Category:Canada law-related lists, etc.
The ultimate source of confusion is that "by country" is being used to mean two very different things: the organization of items within individual articles, and the organization of category hierarchies.
I see two possible solutions (with the second one being my preferred option, as I think it's more easily accomplished)
Thoughts? Colin M ( talk) 20:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I was reading about the fascinating life of Noor Inayat Khan and I noticed that the article has 67 categories. While an egregious example, it's not uncommon for articles, particularly biographical articles, to end up with large numbers of categories.
We have WP:CATDEF and we have WP:OC, yet practice is often leading to examples like this. It seems to me that we're going wrong somewhere; no articles should be anywhere near 67 categories! Sure, we can trim the categories for this example, but I wanted to raise these general questions:
@ Colin M: Re: the "people from" categories, the answer is all of the above. That is how they have been applied for the decade and a half that we have had a category system, with "from" really taken to mean "having an association with", whether that association is born or raised there, worked there, etc. The "defining" standard really doesn't help us with these as the "people from" categories are more about standard biographical details (unless it helps you to think of those details as "defining" or outlining someone's life). @ Bondegezou: The same is true of alumni categories, no one is "defined" as having gone to a particular school. Yet there is clearly a consensus to maintain and apply alumni categories. So you are either not reading WP:DEFCAT thoroughly and correctly in a manner that is consistent with consensus-supported practice, or that guideline is incorrect (I think more the former).
With any category there may be a question of threshold. If you got a few poems published in your school newspaper, should you be categorized as a poet? If you went to a university for a day and dropped out, should you have its alumni category applied? But otherwise if an article crosses whatever threshold is appropriate for that topic, and factually meets the category's meaning (whether clear from its name or from stated criteria), then the category should be applied. That is going to inevitably result in some articles having many more categories, for the most accomplished individuals or those who have especially diverse backgrounds or a number of careers throughout their lives (see for example, Barack Obama, Winston Churchill, etc.). But we don't delete or remove valid and applicable categories just to reach some arbitrary number or quota (cf. Amadeus: "There are simply too many notes."). postdlf ( talk) 16:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Cryptic kindly provided a dataset of 59,553 articles. The number of categories looks to approximately follow a geometric distribution with parameter p = 0.18. The mean number of categories is 5.4, but it is better to look at percentiles. The median (50th percentile) is 4. The lower quartile is 2 and the upper quartile is 7. That means that three quarters of articles have no more than 7 categories. The 95th percentile is 14. That is 95% of all articles have 14 or fewer categories. The 99th percentile is 22. The top 5 articles for numbers of categories in this sample were: International_Convention_for_the_Regulation_of_Whaling (102 categories), Duke_Nukem_3D (72 categories), George_Santayana (72 categories), Jeremy_Bentham (70 categories) and Charles_Woodmason (66 categories).
Biographical articles have significantly more categories than other articles (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.0001). Non-biographical articles have a median of 3 categories (interquartile range 2-5), while biographical articles have a median of 8 categories (interquartile range 6-11). The 95th and 99th percentiles for non-biographical categories are 9 and 15, but 20 and 29 for biographical categories.
There is a relationship between article size and number of categories: a non-parametric correlation, Kendall's τb = 0.21, p < 0.0001. Above about 5000 bytes, the number of categories does not increase. Below 5000 bytes, the average number of categories increases as if to an asymptote. Below about 1000 bytes, the number of categories on average increases linearly.
If we take a 5000 byte cut-off as indicating 'mature' articles, non-biographical articles have a median of 4 categories (interquartile range 2-6), while biographical articles have a median of 10 categories (interquartile range 7-14). The 95th and 99th percentiles for non-biographical categories are 11 and 19, but 24 and 35 for biographical categories.
This would suggest that for reasonably mature articles (above 5000 bytes), a biographical article with more than 35 categories or a non-biographical article with more than 19 categories is very unusual and may warrant closer examination. So Colin M is right: Noor Inayat Khan would appear to be a freak occurrence: the initial 67 categories was extreme, and even the current 41 categories puts the article well into the top 1% for mature, biographical articles.
A typical, mature non-biographical article will have 4 categories and a typical, mature biographical article will have 10 categories. Are we happy with that? Is that the intent of our categorisation activities? Should biographical categories be routinely more heavily categorised than non-biographical categories? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. I don't think sources consistently describe Hilary Duff as an author or an investor. I haven't attempted to quantify what % of sources that talk about her mention those occupations, but I would guess it's less than 10%, as a first-order estimate. See also this quote from WP:COPDEF:
Similarly, celebrities commercializing a fragrance should not be in the perfumers category; not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.. I would say that Hilary Duff's endeavours in writing, fashion design, jewelry design, etc. are very much along these lines. But I recognize that others may have different interpretations of "commonly and consistently" - that was the whole point of that bullet. That a lot of this comes down to varying interpretations of policy, rather than brazen violations of policy. Colin M ( talk) 04:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:SORTKEY says To place entries after the main alphabetical list, use sort keys beginning with tilde ("~").
I tried doing this for the sortkey of a
subcategory and it instead sorted that subcategory to the beginning of the list, before the alphabetical entries. Is this piece of advice wrong/outdated? Does it only apply to categorizing pages and not categories?
Semi-related question: is there a recommended sort key to use to distinguish tracking/hidden subcats from regular ones? None of the Greek letters mentioned in WP:SORTKEY seem to apply, but I would think it would make sense to sort them to the end, after the regular categories. Colin M ( talk) 19:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Portal categorization is not included in guideline, Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines/Categorizing. Could I include it, with the {{ Empty section}} template? The goal is to attract editors who can help update the categorization of portals, which as it conflicts with WP: SMALLCAT. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 14:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Should categories such as "Fiction about horses" be applied in cases where the horses are anthropomorphic, or should these categories only be used when the horses are standard horses? Such we create categories such as "Fiction about anthropomorphic horses"? Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago ( talk) 16:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I have created a new user script for sorting categories alphabetically; you can read its documentation at User:Alex 21/script-categoriessort. -- / Alex/ 21 02:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I've come across several different non-alphanumeric characters being used as sort keys or sort key prefixes: *, +, >, and . to name a few, sometimes together. It seems clear that this guide should either:
What are your preferences regarding (A) or (B)? And if (A), does anyone have any good info to start with? It seems that "+" is being used to sort "Women (in) x" categories, but the rest I have no idea. — swpb T • go beyond • bad idea 21:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
*
and +
are already mentioned in
WP:SORTKEY #2 and #10 -
Evad37 [
talk
23:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)The current policy seems to suggest that only defining categories are allowed. But in practice, it seems this is very rarely followed, and if this policy was enforced, a ton of categories should be deleted. For example, consider Category:Censorship by medium. Should a work that has been censored in some form be included in this category tree? Very few works are actually 'defined' by it, even if it is something famous. Recently, for example, I worked on an article about this book: Rozmowy ze Stanisławem Lemem. It has been censored, and it is an important issue discussed in reviews/literary analysis, but is this a defining characteristic? Probably not, but it is arguable, some entries simply don't mention some aspects in lead (consider Noah_(2014_film)#Muslim_response_and_censorship which does vs Eyes_Wide_Shut#Studio_censorship_and_classification which doesn't, borderline editorial judgement - and IMHO it is clear both entries should be in the same category). Or consider Editing of anime in distribution (which is about censorship in anime). Does it makes sense to have an article discussing censorship in a movie or show, but not being able to categorize said show as being censored? The ability to have a dynamically curated list is VERY helpful. And while overcategorization is an problem, we have to consider usefulness, but if we enforce DEFINE 90% of the entries from such categories should be removed, with many categories disappearing. I think the educational potential of having a well populated category of censored works is very significant (and as usual, there is no other place on the internet that can do this instead). Does our policy cover this dimension? For another thought, I thought about Category:Human rights, where many entries are 'related' to human rights, but probably don't need to be in such category. However, sometimes it simply means they need a more nuanced one, some of which don't exist. Does our policy allow for such entries to stay in less relevant categories while waiting for a better one to be created? I think it should. Overall, I think this policy focuses too much on the technical aspects (clutter reduction) while ignoring more major issues (building an encyclopedia, educational ones, etc.). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Given Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 17#RFC: Categories with committed suicide in title, categories created by Burning Beaker ( talk · contribs) need deletion. I've made them aware of the current community consensus on "died by suicide." Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 23:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I've also reverted Burning Beaker. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 23:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Other editors' opinions are sought as to whether ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Australian women journalists should be a non-diffusing subcategory of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Australian women non-fiction writers. See Category talk:Australian women journalists#non-fiction writers and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category:Australian_women_journalists&action=history. Discuss at Category talk:Australian women journalists#non-fiction writers rather than here please, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I've engaged user Ryubyss ( talk · contribs) on their talk page regarding their categorization of certain articles in a new Category they created, called Category:Social justice terminology. I've done my best to explain WP:CATDEF as a basis for categorization, but I'm not sure they're getting it, and in any case, my knowledge of categorization isn't as deep as I would like. It would be helpful and appreciated if someone with a better background in categorization could respond at this discussion and correct any mistakes I may have made in my attempts at explanation, and perhaps add your own thoughts to the discussion. Thanks in advance, Mathglot ( talk) 22:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
At Disappearance of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow only three of the four cats show up at the bottom. I've verified they are all valid. If I reorder them then which of the four doesn't show changes, but I can't get all four to show up. What's wrong? Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 02:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion on how to handle these categories has opened here. ミラ P 19:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Category:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is starting to become a huge, sprawling monster, as subcats are created for all types of Category:Events postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, all types of Category:Events cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.
This is becoming pointless, because as country after country goes into some kind of lockdown, just about everything everywhere is being postponed or cancelled.
Since postponed-or-cancelled-due-to-coronavirus is the new normal for 2020, it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
So I propose that Category:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic should contain only articles which are substantively about the impact of the virus, and that all all other articles should be purged.
So for example, Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the restaurant industry in the United States should remain in the category tree, but Category:Music events cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic should be deleted. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments are invited at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Should_Category:University_of_Canberra_people_be_removed_from_Category:People_from_Canberra? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments are invited on a disagreement about category diffusion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Diffusing vs non-diffusing confusion. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A disagreement has broken out on Jerry Givens, a victim of the present pandemic. He is currently in Category:Deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Virginia, which is (by way of Category:Deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic) a subcategory of Category:2020 deaths. My understanding of WP:SUBCAT is that if the article is in a subcategory, it is generally not appropriate to also include it in the parent category. RFD ( talk · contribs) disagrees, and has expressed his position here. Is there some exception to the general rule for year-of-death categories, such that articles should be in both the parent category and the sub-category? Or am I misunderstanding WP:SUBCAT all together? Steve Smith ( talk) 17:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Australian_women_categories which has led to Category:21st-century women writers no longer having an Australian presence as they have decided to do away with Category:21st-century Australian women writers. Pam D 22:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Some of our more complex hierarchies analyse things by multiple parameters, and may then group them in two ways, e.g. Category:People by occupation and nationality and Category:People by nationality and occupation.
We have been mostly using the wording "…by foo and bar" since 2008 if not before, see e.g. this CFD which was justified as "for consistency with the other sub-cats of Category:Categories by country and city."
However, it is not intuitively clear to most people which way round the contents of "…by foo and bar" will be.
Would it be clearer to use "…by foo by bar"? This is currently used in at least the Category:Television by country hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#People_by_time_period. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This page states:
Default sort keys are sometimes defined even where they do not seem necessary—when they are the same as the page name, for example—in order to prevent other editors or automated tools from trying to infer a different default.
This is a silly reason to repeat the page title unnecessarily, simply because page titles change! I've come across a myriad of pages that have outdated defaultsorts that no one has noticed or updated (and with tools like HotCat, people who add categories don't even see them). It doesn't make sense to defensively put something that gets very little visibility (as it is not visible directly on the article page itself). If tools are inserting erroneous defaultsorts, they should be fixed or changed so they need manual confirmation. The default sorting behavior of using the current article title works just fine. Overrides are meant specifically when the page title would lead to an incorrect sort, not because some guy once wrote a crappy bot. Opencooper ( talk) 15:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The RFC is at WT:Overcategorization#RfC_on_exceptions_to_WP:OCAWARD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Proposal:_a_bot_to_place_eponymous_categories_as_the_first_category_on_articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at WP:AWNB#categories: People of the Australian frontier wars, People associated with massacres of Indigenous Australians. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the category Category:Thai emigrants to the United States, which is under Category:American people of Thai descent, editor JDDJS keeps trying to add this to Hong Chau, who is an American of Vietnamese descent. He is including it because her Vietnamese-born parents were in a Thai refugee camp. Is this really appropriate? She is not of Thai descent, and the category makes it look like she is. Her background seems too complex to warrant using this category. Someone exploring this category without context will assume she is Thai. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Can please somebody with more knowledge about categorization check if this special already existing category is acceptable for WK... I have some doubts... CommanderWaterford ( talk) 19:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A question has arisen on category sorting. User:Jweiss11 has been changing categorization sorts to use initial caps even where such usage is contrary to normal grammatical and usage rules. For example, "1951 Dayton Flyers football team" is being changed to "1951 Dayton Flyers Football Team", and "Dayton Flyers football" to "Dayton Football". This seems very counterintuitive to me, but Jweiss indicates this is necessary because Wikipedia's sorting process only recognizes words with initial caps. Is this correct? What is the rationale for a system that seems so contrary to normal usage rules? Thanks. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
“ | The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. | ” |
— Wikipedia:Categorization |
The sense I get from skimming Wikipedia:Categorization is that categories are about article topics. However, in a few recent CFDs, there has been discussion about categories based on article titles. Is there a place that there is clearly opposed in guidelines or a discussion to which I can refer? Am I misunderstanding Wikipedia:Categorization? Daask ( talk) 22:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Page watchers may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion § RFC on including disambiguators in category names. Izno ( talk) 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there somewhere that categories like Category:Criminals from Minnesota have already been discussed w/re who qualifies to be included? I'm wondering whether anyone who has ever been convicted of/plead guilty to any crime gets included, or if they need to be noteworthy for that crime. This feels like something that has likely been discussed and decided, so sorry if I missed finding it in the archives. (I started wondering at George Floyd, where Category:American people convicted of robbery is certainly appropriate, but at what point do we categorize a person as a "criminal"?) Thanks for any help! —valereee ( talk) 13:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Per item #5 in WP:SORTKEY, it says we should keep only hyphens, apostrophes and full stops/periods from the sortkey. So should the article .hack//G.U. Trilogy be sorted as "hackGU Trilogy" or ".hackG.U. Trilogy" or something else? I would think that since these "dots" are not operating as full stops or periods, that they should be dropped, but I'm not sure. I would note that the former would sort the article under "H" in categories, but the latter would sort under a "." header, so it does seem to make a significant difference. BOVINEBOY 2008 22:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please change this to use lower case delta rather than upper case delta. See sentence at top of section. Naraht ( talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
. IMO, should be lower case delta, that is"Δ" (delta)
. Naraht ( talk) 17:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)"δ" (delta)
Your attention is requested re: the use of the All Included tag on Category:Labor disputes in the United States.-- User:Namiba 19:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this, intended to lead to proposed additions on the main category policy pages, at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Where_does_it_actually_say_you_should_not_just_empty_a_category_you_don't_like?. After a deal of discussion, voting is underway on a revised draft, the idea being to take it to the policy pages, especially here with approval from Cfd and the project. Johnbod ( talk) 14:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Editorial opinion is sought at Category talk:Tourist attractions in Perth, Western Australia#Context. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@ BrownHairedGirl: I see that you recently made a series of edits, any example of which was removing Category:Conference Carolinas from Category:Conference Carolinas templates with the edit summary "remove templates and project pages and user pages from content categories"? Was there a discussion or policy change concerning templates and template categories being categorized under content categories? Thanks, Jweiss11 ( talk) 18:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Templates are not articles, and thus do not belong in content categories
Here's the cleanup task which is possible now that the templates have been removed from content cats.
My approach is to look for pages in the user namespace, in the subcats of Category:Main topic classifications. I start at a shallow depth, and increase the depth of the search as I clean up each level.
This evening, I have been cleaning to a depth of 5 subcats, using https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17278491. In nearly every case, the action needed is to use @ DannyS712's handy script User:DannyS712/Draft no cat, which is a one-click fix.
Here are the 55 such edits which I have done so far this evening.
When I have cleaned to a depth of 5, I will increase the depth to 6, and clean that. Then depth 7, and so on.
At greater depths, the Petscan search times out unless it is run at a low-usage time-of-day. I find that around 0700 UTC is the best time for deep searches. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Category:American white supremacist politicians
What should the criteria be for inclusion in this category? I am thinking multiple reliable sources that specifically call the politician a white supremacist. Otherwise it becomes a magnet for original research. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
In the last months, user The Transhumanist has changed the WP:SORTKEY for many outline articles from "asterisk" to "space". For example, see here: [1] [2], and many similar edits were made by him, see list [3]. Note, "Outline of mining" is not a main article for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mining. Only Mining is a main article for this category. The articles typically called "History of X" ("Types of X", "List of X", "Outline of X") should be categorized with asterisk, per WP:SORTKEY.
From
WP:SORTKEY: The main article/s of a category, if existent, should get sorted with a space as key so that it/they appear at the very top of the category. Example: [[Category:Example| ]]
Those articles are typically homonymous or at least synonymous to their category. Furthermore other general articles that are highly relevant to the category should be sorted with an asterisk as key so that they also appear at the top of a category but beneath the main article/s. Example: [[Category:Example|*]]
Those articles are typically called "History of example", "Types of example", "List of example" or similar.
I think, it's a very bad situation when "Outline of X" is located above the main "X" article in the related category. See ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wine for example, Outline of wine is located above Wine. The readers want to see the main article first, not "outline" of something else, so space as a sortkey should be used for only one main article (in most cases). I ask to restore the correct categorization with "asterisk" for all outline articles. 46.211.1.121 ( talk) 15:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for correct explanation finally. Now I understand the reasons of your edits, but your logic is absolutely wrong. It's a very bad situation when "Outline of X" is located above the main "X" article in the related category (see ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wine for example, Outline of wine is located above Wine). Readers want to see the main article first, not "outline" of something, so space as a sortkey should be used for only one main article (in most cases). I will start a discussion on related forum to ask what the other editors think about your version of sortkeys for outlines. 46.211.2.10 ( talk) 14:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- No need. Thank you for sharing your opinions. Your wine example convinced me. I agree with you that all other links should fall after the key article. I hadn't considered whether or not "Index" and "Outline" should appear ahead of the root article. It's not hard picking the root article out from them. But, from library classification and publishing points of view, that would be presenting the table of contents and the index before the subject itself, which does seem awkward, when you think about it. To ensure that they fall below the bare subject, per WP:SORTKEY #10, I'll start correcting outlines' placement with my next maintenance pass, or sooner, if I can figure out how to use WP:AWB to do it. And I've added "Outline of" and "Index of" to the appropriate place in WP:SORTKEY (#10). Thank you for your persistence. I'll try to be more open minded in future discussions, with whomever they happen to be with. Keep up the good work. We're lucky to have you here. — The Transhumanist 12:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Done Adjusted sort key for those outlines that appeared before key article in the root article's category, per WP:SORTKEY #10. — The Transhumanist 12:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
With related (more clear) changes in #10 rule. Normal or not? 46.211.155.173 ( talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Further input is requested at Category talk:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants#Sorting -- wooden superman 09:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Template_talk:Very_large#Template_name concerning potentially changing the naming scheme from "very large" to an alternative. Input is invited. -- Bsherr ( talk) 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that several language categories have been inappropriately emptied and tagged for speedy deletion by Jkrn111, and seemingly blindly/carelessly deleted by other administrators ( RHaworth, Anthony Bradbury, perhaps others, but these are the prevalent ones in the samples I looked at). Take for example Category:Irian Highlands languages, which was created in April 2011 by another user, was speedily deleted with the rationale "No use, Existing Category:West Papuan Highlands languages". This is obviously not a valid speedy deletion criterion. It was replaced by Category:West Papuan Highlands languages, which was created by the aforementioned user in April of this year without any discussion, and without proper attribution. Similarly, Category:Marind languages, Category:Morehead and Upper Maro River languages, Category:Kaure–Kapori languages, among various others, were emptied and deleted under similar fashion. This really has become a mess that should have gone through the CFD process to begin with, and it would be appreciated if others more knowledge of these subjects can look into it. ℯ xplicit 00:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
{{cat handler
| all = {{ #ifexpr:{{#time:U}} >= {{#time:U|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} + 7 days }} |[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]][[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories]]|[[Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion]]}}
| nocat = {{{nocat|}}}
| category2 = {{{category|¬}}}
}}
{{
delete}}
directly. I am aware that Commons encourages it (see
c:Template:Delete and indeed
c:Template:Speedy), but we are not Commons. If people can't be bothered to state explicitly which speedy deletion criterion they are claiming, then
WP:CSD cannot apply and the tag should be reverted. Can we do something (perhaps in Lua) that will allow {{
db}}
to detect direct use without a wrapper such as {{
db-c1}}
? If we can, it should display an error message and not the speedy deletion pink box. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
db}}
is intended for direct use. I'm not aware of any other template which uses it. It is {{
db-meta}} which is used by other deletion templates.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
22:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)WP:CAT#T says "Templates should be categorized... not by template content", but this would seem to defeat the whole categorization systems for templates. If I cannot put a template in any non-template category then I cannot find any templates via categories... even if I know they do exists. I would have to know the exact template name or exact template category name... and these are often highly unpredictable.
How does it possibly improve Wikipedia to not let Template:History of Christianity be in Category:History of Christianity? tahc chat 03:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I have set up Category:Category redirects with possibilities, for names that are currently redirected but where there is potential to helpfully populate a separate category.
{{ R with possibilities}} can now be added to a category redirect page, and it will put the page into the above category. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Should ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:SpaceX commercial payloads be the subcategory of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Spacecraft launched by Falcon rockets? Maybe correct as of now, but incorrect when SpaceX will have more than one Falcon rocket family (BFR etc). Or it should be the subcategory of parent ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:SpaceX directly with addition of all "spacecraft/payload" articles to both categories. 91.124.117.29 ( talk) 23:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I have made several edit requests to semi-protected WP:BLP articles, which involve compliance with my interpretation of WP:CATV. The way I understand it is that all attached categories must be verifiable, and they must also be supported by some kind of prose or indication in the article that indicates membership in the category. So if the late Kate Spade is in Category:American Roman Catholics, then we should expect the article to read, somewhere, "Spade is a baptized Catholic and goes to Mass every Sunday. She spoke about her faith in a CNN interview.[1]" but I have been repeatedly rebuffed by editors who tell me that we do not need to worry about what the article says, as long as the fact is indicated in a source... somewhere (the fact in question is not actually mentioned in any source at all.) So when this guideline says "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." does it really mean what I think it means, or am I simply misguided? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 05:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If an article's content does not support membership in a category, then the category can and should be removed. If supporting content is there, but editors decide (whether for BLP or any other reason) to remove it because it is not sourced, then the article no longer supports membership in the category...and the category should then be removed. postdlf ( talk) 15:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
defining characteristicsper WP:CATV. Certes ( talk) 10:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone else think
Category:Racially motivated violence against European Americans may be a bad idea. It might be a better idea to set up a category with a clearer inclusions criteria like "Crimes committed by the Nation of Islam". For now, the category summary says This is a list of specific incidents, individual racists, or hate groups that have committed violent attacks against people because they were European American (or otherwise White people who reside in the United States of America).
I find the use of the "
European Americans" terminology in a racially-charged context particularly troubling. The terminology itself conflates race with nationality, and mixed race Europeans being considered "non-European" has a long and troubling history.
[5]
Seraphim System (
talk)
00:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
"White people? Caucasians?"
They are not interchangeable definitions for groups:
I'm thinking about creating a new Category:People with disputed ancestry claims to include people like these:
I would add a note to the category page like this:
Note:This category is for people who made claims about their own ancestry which have been the topic of substantial disputes, regardless of whether these debates have been settled.
I reckon this may be a controversial category, so I wanted to check here if anyone had input on inclusion criteria or had an idea for a better category name. Daask ( talk) 20:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot of instruction about where Paris belongs, but nothing really about where Category:Paris belongs. Because that category contains people, sport, crime, buildings, history, and a slew of stuff that are clearly not Category:Cities in France, ought Category:Paris not be included in Category:Cities in France, or frankly any of its current parent categories? Obviously, that's not what's intended (or is it?) but having categories having both articles and identically-titled categories included isn't ideal, especially when the categories are supposedly diffusing: contrast Category:States of the United States with Category:Ceremonial counties (of England). Which of these approaches is correct per WP? Or are we to assume that those looking for subdivisions of one country want one thing and those looking for subdivisions of another aren't? Harmony may never be achievable, but I would hope that we could come to consensus and, if necessary, amend the page to reflect the consensus. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Template talk:Main#Category namespace that may have relevance to certain sections of this guideline. Any constructive input would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I've had a disagreement with one editor who is very keen on project tagging large numbers of category pages, so I'm coming here for wider input. Should the mass creation of talk pages of categories (containing only wikiproject tags) be encouraged or discouraged?
The only advantage of tagging I could think is that the category will show up in the project's article alerts systems if the category is nominated at CfD, but I believe it's much more efficient to tag categories only if (and when) they do come up at CfD. Other than that, are there any reasons a project might want to track its categories? Given the large number of categories out there, and the lack of distinctions in quality or importance ratings, I'm not sure I see any point.
On the other hand, the existence of a category talk page can be a minor maintenance nuisance. First off, it adds an extra step in the process every time a category is renamed or deleted, though that's not really significant. A more important consideration is in the same direction as the reason why the {{ WikiProject Disambiguation}} banner should not be placed on dab pages: when making major changes to a category, it's helpful to see if there have been previous discussions on the talk page, and if talk pages aren't generally project tagged, then this involves simply glancing at the talk page link: if it's blue, then there might have been a discussion, if it's red, then there isn't. This wouldn't work if all these links are blue.
What should be the relative weight of the disadvantages and the benefits? Are there any considerations I'm not aware of? – Uanfala (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I would recommend that users take a look at Category:Category-Class articles and its subcategories (e.g. Category:Category-Class Architecture articles). Category tagging has happened on over 100,000 talk pages and has been happening for at least 12 years. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
|QUALITY_SCALE=subpage
, which means that the various page types are defined in the
custom class mask. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC){{
WPBannerMeta}}
, which in practice means all except about six of them. In short: you only need to worry about these two parameters for the talk pages of articles and the talk pages of disambiguation pages. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Just to note that one of the examples in the
Non-diffusing subcategories section appears to have been changed since the documentation was written. ‹The
template
Cat is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Western Europe does not include the countries - they are within the ‹The
template
Cat is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Western European countries subcat (although the {{
All included}}
template is still present).
Nzd
(talk)
04:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
All included}}
template from ‹The
template
Cat is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Western Europe.
Nzd
(talk)
09:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
We have standard templates to display links to decade and year categories for (dis)establishments, e.g. see Category:20th-century disestablishments in Germany.
Template:EstcatCountryCentury has a parameter to suppress the table for centuries where the detailed categories have been merged, e.g. Category:14th-century establishments in Luxembourg.
Where a country's name changed during the century, some editors have been making tailored tables, covering only the relevant years. I have been compiling a list of these at Template talk:EstcatCountryCentury. In some cases these only cover part of one or two decades.
Hike395 ( talk · contribs) recently deleted some of these tailored part-century tables with the edit comment "rm odd formatting in category space using AWB". I reinstated some of these, but then experimented with combining the years for different country names into one template to be used on the century category for both names.
Do editors find the partial-century table [6] or the multi-name table [7] more useful, or have any other suggestions for improvement? – Fayenatic London 20:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested regarding a possible issue of over-categorization. Please discuss at Talk:The Aversion Project#Over-categorization. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 23:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Koavf and I are disagreeing on the proper categorization of eponymous categories. See the discussion: Category talk:Black Francis#BRD discussion: Eponymous categorization. It has become clear that, regardless of whoever is right, there may be a lot of pages that would have to be changed. So the question is: Which categories should eponymous categories be placed in, and under what circumstances? — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 01:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Should a subject be redundantly included in main and subcats, or just the most-specific subcat without redundancy? Not factoring in exceptional cases.
As an example, say a rapper Soulja Boy. Should he be included in all three of:
Or just the last one? The project page is a little vague in it's wording about this topic of diffusion, I wish it were more straightforward.
Then there's also Category:American male rappers as well. There's just way too much redundant categorization for a lot of subjects. Is this encouraged or discouraged? DA1 ( talk) 14:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
Diffusecat}}
banner which means that if an article qualifies for any of its subcategories (these include ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American rappers and ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American male rappers), that article should not be in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:American rappers at all. Although ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American rappers does not also bear that banner, I really don't think that articles that qualify for ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American male rappers should be in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:African-American rappers as well. This is, basically,
WP:DIFFUSE vs
WP:DUPCAT. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I realize that this has been brought up previously but I thought that I would bring it up again because I want to see some consistency on this project. There are a select few subcategories within Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States by state that only contain subcategories (NJ, RI, NY, MA) For Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey, is it wrong to place all entries within this category, like all of the other 46 states have included (2 redirects are currently within this category). My reasoning is that these unincorporated communities can be categorized both by county and state. So the reader has a choice of searching through either by the communities specifically sorted just in that county, or have a whole list within the entire state. See Category:Unincorporated communities in Pennsylvania that contains over 1400 entries. Each of these entries contain both the county category and state category. How come NJ and others should be treated differently? Tinton5 ( talk) 21:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed with regard to the disability categories that were recently added to the Health and appearance of Michael Jackson article, as seen here, here and here. Discussion is at Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson#Category. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 12:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories is a theoretically useful maintenance tool. It groups together all the disambiguation categories which are not currently empty (they should be empty).
However, there is a technical hitch. Non-empty dab categories are added to Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories only when the category page is purged. That doesn't happen unless the page is edited, which is rare.
So yesterday morning, Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories had only 18 subcats. But I ran an AWB job doing WP:NULLEDITs on all 1660 category pages which transclude Template:Category disambiguation ... and the result was 95 non-empty categories listed in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories.
I have been busy fixing the pages in ambiguous categories, so over 60 of them are now empty ... but they are still listed in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories.
The only way I can see to make Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories a usable maintenance tool is to have a bot regularly purge all 1660 category pages which transclude Template:Category disambiguation. I suggest that a weekly purge would be good.
I am sure that if I put in a request at WP:BOTREQ, some helpful bot-owner will put in a WP:BRFA request to run this job. However, BRFA won't approve it unless there is a consensus to to do so.
So what do others think? Would you support such a bot? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RfC about redirects to categories. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking for some feedback on when the proposed ω sort key would be applied. E.g. does this mean that categories like Category:WikiProject Volleyball would be under Category:Volleyball with this sortkey? If so, what does this mean for the division between administrative and content categories in the encyclopedia? Clarification would be handy here. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see:
Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RfC about redirects to categories
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys it says in point #5 that hyphens should be kept in sort values, so for -30- (The Wire), would the current {{DEFAULTSORT:30}} be incorrect? -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors interested in categorization are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board § Categorisation of Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne and SUBCAT. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Can someone just confirm that articles such as Boriša Đorđević should use {{DEFAULTSORT:Dordevic, Borisa}} rather than {{DEFAULTSORT:Djordjevic, Borisa}}? Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 07:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
{{DEFAULTSORT:Đorđević, Boriša}}
and see
the category page. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
17:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I think at this point there's a real need to provide some guidance about how this guideline should be enforced, specifically with regard to this section:
We have a recurring problem in my part of the world with one editor interpreting this to mean that he should, in each and every situation and without looking at the categories he's dealing with at all, remove every article this applies to from the parent category. This is frequently resulting in category changes that, if considered in context, objectively don't make sense, and for which literally the only possible justification that can be given is "but WP:SUBCAT told me I can!" If taken to a discussion in these cases, there may not be necessarily consensus on how to fix the category tree, but there is inevitably 100% agreement that we should not simply remove all the articles from the parent category.
This is frequently emerging in cases where an article is in both a parent and child category because there's some sort of issue with the category tree, probably requiring discussion as to what to do with it. These cases absolutely need sorting out - but they don't get sorted out without working out what the problem is and what the best way of dealing with it is, and probably a trip to WP:CFD to move things around and practically deal with the issue. A mass removal of articles from the parent category in these situations just exacerbates the existing situation and creates an incredible mess that someone will have to come along and clean up later while resolving the actual category issue. There's nothing in the text I quoted above that actually suggests to people to deal with it by universally removing all articles in this situation from the parent category, but because it's happening I really think it needs explicit amendment to make clear that it's not acceptable to do it 100% of the time without actually considering why the articles are there. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 02:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
"if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C."
"an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory)", and – paraphrasing to match Certes' example –
the article "Foo" need only be placed in "Category:Diplomats", not in both "Category:Diplomats" and "Category:Public servants". Because the first category (diplomats) is in the second category (public servants), readers are already given the information that Foo is a public servant by him being a diplomat.
it not clear to me that "NZ writers by century" intended to diffuse "NZ writers",– Sub-categories quite commonly diffuse their parent categories. This is explained in WP:CAT, in particular in Categorizing pages, Subcategorization and Diffusing large categories.
If I'm a reader looking for an NZ writer, does it follow that I should know I need to look in "NZ writers by century"?– The blue box at the top of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New Zealand writers, that says
Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category ... should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories.does suggest that the editors might not leave the articles directly in that category, and that the reader may need to look in subcategories. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
If our diplomat were also notable as a pianist ... It's the same with diplomat and treasury official.– It's not the same; the important difference (in the context of the WP:CAT) is that pianist is not a sub-cat of public servant, whereas diplomat and treasury official are.
add to Category:Diplomats from Wherever, then a second time for the treasury to add to Category:Public servants from Wherever– Without prejudice to the merits of your proposal or WP:CAT, this is explicitly contrary to the existing WP:CAT guidelines, so could you please state explicitly whether you think we should:
Add pages to multiple overlapping categories, and WP:Categorization#Categorizing pages says that
each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. I think we all understand the guidance but are unclear as to whether to apply it to each notable attribute individually or once to the subject as a whole. So far we've found nothing in writing to decide that question either way, so I'm hoping that a consensus will establish new guidance on this point. Certes ( talk) 14:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:CATDD advises us to– Interesting. CATDD is an information page not a policy or guideline; it's a very short summary of the guidelines, which take precedence. The link from "multiple overlapping categories" is to Category tree organization, whose first sentence is "Categories are organized as overlapping 'trees'", so I suggest that CATDD should probably say "multiple overlapping category trees".Add pages to multiple overlapping categories
So far we've found nothing in writing to decide that question either way– The three sentences from the guidelines that I quoted or paraphrased in my post of 08:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC) ("not normally placed directly in [parent]", "without duplication in parent categories above it", "not in both [child] and [parent]") seem fairly unambiguous to me. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I count as "uninvolved" or not, as I initiated one of the example conversations linked early in this section. I believe that Mitch's edits are intended to be helpful. However, they look to be done based on formulae and algorithms, not on reading individual articles. For example, Tony Ayers [21] [22] has been secretary of five departments according to the succession box at the bottom of the article, and of course had a career before reaching that level. Very few people would argue for a line in a succession box not indicating that a category would also be appropriate. Only the last two lines have categories specific for those roles. The other three are represented only as category:Australian public servants. Perhaps the "solution" was not just to remove the higher category, but to create and add the missing three categories for secretaries of Aboriginal Affairs, Social Security and Community Services. Reading the rest of the article, perhaps it should also be categorised as Teacher in Victoria and Prison officer. SO instead of just removing one category, the "solution" was to create two or three new ones and add all of those and two others to the article in exchange for the one to be removed. The problem was not that one high-level category was on the article, but that there were several gaps in the category structure. -- Scott Davis Talk 14:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm going through Category:Album covers and assessing non-free soundtrack cover images being used in various articles. The parent category is quite large; so, I'm wondering if it might be acceptable to create a new subcategory titled Category:Soundtrack album covers or something similar to make it easier to find these files. Apparently, non-free album cover filess are added to the parent category each time {{ Non-free album cover}} is used. Will this be affected is a new subcategory is created for specific types of album cover art? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
Non-free album cover}}
to have a new parameter - say |soundtrack=yes
; or create another template to be used instead - say {{
Non-free soundtrack album cover}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
A follow-on from this discussion, here.
Briefly: given the relative stability in recent months of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:20th-century male writers and similar categories for writers (and the longstanding stability of categories for male actors by century), I've begun creating and populating similar categories for male musicians and artists by century. My argument is one that's been kicking around for a few years now, in some guise or other; we have women categorized a certain way, and there's no reason we shouldn't be treating male subjects the same way. I've been treading relatively slowly, but haven't really met much formal pushback before the linked discussion. Hence opening this discussion here.
My feeling: we should have men-by-century categories for many of the professions for which there are women-by-century categories. We've got categories for men by profession and country, at least in many of the cultural disciplines, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extend it to by-century as well. Others may disagree: I'd be interested in hearing more discussion. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 21:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just created Template:Uw-redcat, and added it to Template:Single notice links.
This is to warn users who add pages to no-existent categories (see WP:REDNOT), causing them to be listed at Special:WantedCategories. On average, 50–100 such redlinks appear every day, and it is nearly a full-time job to keep the list clear.
So far, there has been no standardised warning for this. I hope that the wording I have used makes sense.
I opened a discussion on it at WT:UW#Template:Uw-redcat, and suggest that any further discussion should take place there. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been discussed before (and I've read the recent discussion above), but I can't seem to find a good answer. My specific question is whether the kebab article should be in Category:Levantine cuisine, and/or the geographical subcategories Category:Lebanese cuisine, Category:Syrian cuisine, Category:Jordanian cuisine, etc. It's also a general question about how to categorize food items and dishes, and similar things that are found in multiple geographical areas.
This guideline says each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs
and
WP:SUBCAT says an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it
. What does "logically belong" mean, and how low is "as low as possible"? Kebab dishes aren't exclusively Lebanese for example, so if "as low down as possible" is meant to be the category that includes all relevant subcategories, then probably it would have to be
Category:World cuisine.
It seems more likely that it means that a dish should be included in all "Category:Country cuisine" categories that notably feature it, and not in any "Category:Region cuisine" categories that are supercategories of those countries. In other words, the kebab article should not be in Category:Levantine cuisine. It should also be taken out of Category:Balkan cuisine and added instead to each of the 11 geographical subcategories (Albanian, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Kosovan, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Romanian, Serbian, and Turkish), and similarly for Category:South Asian cuisine. What about Category:Arab cuisine?
This would imply that Category:Levantine cuisine shouldn't have any articles about specific dishes listed in it, and that the 100+ dishes currently in the category should be duplicated and moved down into each of the constituent country subcategories. The same would apply to all "Category:Region cuisine" categories; for example no specific dish articles should be present in the categories Category:Mediterranean cuisine, Category:Middle Eastern cuisine, Category:Asian cuisine, etc., or even in Category:World cuisine.
Is this correct? It doesn't seem to reflect current practice very well, as most of the "Category:Region cuisine" categories have many dishes listed directly under them, and often at the same time in the subcategories. It would be a big change to actually enforce the without duplication in parent categories above it
part of the guideline. I'm also not sure how desirable that is. But it's inconsistent; looking at the list in
Category:Middle Eastern cuisine, one would certainly expect to see the kebab article in there (there are a number of specific types of kebab listed). I can't figure out if I should add it, or remove all the specific dish articles.
It might also cause issues with verification, as the articles may have references to a dish being "Levantine", but not specifically mention the constituent countries. Are we sure that all such dishes are present in Cypriot cuisine for example? This is even more troublesome with the larger categories - do we actually have "Category:Country cuisine" categories to cover every country in Asia? Can we accurately determine to which specific countries in Asia that oolong, cocopandan syrup, and mochi - and kebab - do or don't belong? What countries exactly make up the Middle East?
One more example, Adana kebab is in Category:Cuisine of Adana and also in the parent Category:Turkish cuisine. Since it's served all over Turkey, it doesn't seem like it should be restricted only to the former category, while it wouldn't make sense to leave it out.
There's also the question of categories themselves, for example Category:Syrian cuisine is a subcategory of Category:Levantine cuisine, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Middle Eastern cuisine. It would seem then that Category:Syrian cuisine should be removed from Category:Middle Eastern cuisine. Currently Category:Lebanese cuisine is not in Category:Middle Eastern cuisine; again I can't figure out whether I should add it, or remove the other Levantine countries instead. Also, Category:Kebabs is in Category:Middle Eastern cuisine, but not in Category:Asian cuisine or any of the south/central/east Asian cuisine subcategories. Should it go in any of those, or in Category:North African cuisine, or should it be removed from Category:Middle Eastern cuisine and placed "as low down as possible" in each and every of the Middle Eastern (and Asian, African, European, and even the Americas') "Category:Country cuisine" categories?
Any comments or pointers to previous relevant discussions or consensus are appreciated, thanks. -- IamNotU ( talk) 17:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there any specific policy or protocol for placing pages within a parent category and subcategory? For instance, you'll see in Category:Public high schools in the United States by state, where N.J. is the only state that does not contain ALL public high school pages (only a subcategory of them broken down by county listing), along with categories with places of worship, municipalities, unincorporated communities, etc. They are only organized by county. Shouldn't all pages be included in these categories (hence this template) since pretty much all of the other US states follow this practice? Only a couple of editors are against this since it was discussed previously. I find it useful for the reader to have the option to view listings by both county and statewide. Tinton5 ( talk) 04:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I've submitted an RfC re: the categorization of all works (albums, songs) by artists by genre.
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre.
Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the may deficiencies of Wikimedia's crude category system is that it does not automatically generate a table of contents for the category. Editors have to manually add a TOC if it is needed.
So a few weeks ago, I created Template:CatAutoTOC, which generates a table of contents on a category page if the category size exceeds a certain threshold. It is now used on about 35,000 categories, nearly all via category header templates.
The size thresholds I applied are:
However, I just noticed that {{
Category TOC}} says it should not be used for categories containing less than 200 pages.
One way or another, that discrepancy needs to be resolved.
I can see the case for the threshold of 200, because it is one pageful, and a TOC is arguably un-needed on one page. Personally, I think that a TOC is still useful on categories in the 100–200 page range, but that may just be an oddity of mine.
What do others think?
What should the size thresholds be? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
So, I'm thinking particularly of categories like Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States (sorted with the key "-") and Category:Canadian emigrants to the United States (sorted with the key "+") that are subcategories of Category:American people of Canadian descent, even though a significant portion of those expatriates and immigrants aren't/weren't U.S. citizens. Should the subcategorization be replaced with {{ category see also}} instead? Or maybe it's enough that they all share the same parent category Category:Canada–United States relations? During the years I've noticed lots of reverting categories back and forth ( [23], [24]), which is why I'd love to see a conclusion to this inconsistency. -- Kliituu ( talk) 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Kliituu, Necrothesp, and Rathfelder: I think that there are three issues here:
There's still a little tweaking to do, but it's nearly ready for rollout. It takes no parameters, and when placed on a bilateral human migration category, it creates a navbox for the categories for descent, emigrants, expatriates and expatriate sportspeople between the two countries.
To demonstrate it I did a few tests on some pages, and self-reverted:
I'd really welcome feedback on whether this is a good idea, and if so whether it needs tweaking.
Also pinging some other editors whose feedback I'd value: @ Oculi, Black Falcon, Marcocapelle, Fayenatic london, and Ymblanter:. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't actually see a lot of point in retaining the expatriate categories. As far as I'm concerned, an emigrant is someone who moves to a country and intends to stay there permanently or more or less permanently (e.g. some people emigrate to Britain from the Caribbean, stay for decades and to all intents and purposes become British, but then retire back to the Caribbean; they're still emigrants, even though they eventually return to their country of birth), even if they don't actually do so, or who ends up staying permanently even if they didn't originally intend to. It has nothing to do with actual citizenship. I'm not sure what an expatriate is, as it has different definitions depending on context. Is it a person who lives in a country for a bit? So what? The trouble is, the term "emigrant" often tends to be used of people from developing countries and "expatriate" of people from developed countries, even if their situations are pretty much identical. If we do retain the two separate types of category, however, then I definitely don't think it's worth using both on one article. If someone ends up staying in a country then the emigrant category is sufficient. I also do think both emigrants and expatriates should be categorised under descent for navigational reasons. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC about whether to standardise on the "Z" spelling in descriptive category names, i.e. to use "Organization" in all cases. I estimate that this affects the naming of about ten thousand categories.
See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC:_spelling_of_"organisation"/"organization"_in_descriptive_category_names. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to create a redirect category page, but it doesn't work. The redirect page is Talk:Whites only, but the category that is displayed is Category:NA-Class Civil Rights Movement articles instead of Category:Redirect-Class Civil Rights Movement articles. What am I doing incorrectly? Mitchumch ( talk) 23:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
|QUALITY_SCALE=extended
won't make the template recognise |class=redirect
, because it's not one of the seven classes listed at
Template:WPBannerMeta#Assessment. It needs to be either the subpage or inline method; I can do it for you, if I have a clear mandate from the WikiProject. However, I go out to work soon, I can pick this up at (say) 16:00 (UTC), bot not likely to be any earlier. BTW it shouldn't be necessary to explictly set |class=Redirect
because the class is autodetected - if
the WikiProject banner is not set up for Redirect-class, it defaults to NA-class. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)|QUALITY_SCALE=extended
to |QUALITY_SCALE=subpage
just like this; (b) on
the documentation, alter |QUALITY_SCALE=extended
to |QUALITY_SCALE=subpage
(so that it matches the main template). --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
For
WP:DRAFTNOCAT please add an info that class=Draft in WikiProject templates on "Draft talk" pages works as expected. While at it the section could also state that any {{
stub}}
template might violate DRAFTNOCAT, unless it is smart enough to have no effect outside of the article namespace, e.g., {{
authority control}}
is smart, but {{
US-record-producer-stub}}
is
not smart and caused
havoc on my first draft. –
84.46.52.44 (
talk)
16:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
|class=Draft
on a WikiProject banner template in Draft talk: space - when used outside the main Talk: space, almost all (there are five or six exceptions) WikiProject banners will autodetect the class when there is no |class=
parameter. Same with |importance=
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
WPBS|blp=yes|1=…}}
. –
84.46.53.95 (
talk)
04:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Hi. Currently, Category:Categories requiring diffusion has 6,457 subcategories, many of which have nothing to diffuse currently and together making it hard to find what needs work. As early as 2010 it was remarked that the category itself requires diffusion ( Category talk:Categories requiring diffusion#Subcategories?). I'd like to suggest that all categories that only have 1 subcategory, and have no direct pages in them, be removed, which would reduce it by a few hundred. Other suggestions include adding a switch in Template:Category diffuse to only add the category once there are a certain number of pages that need to be sorted into sub categories. Thoughts? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 03:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't work with cats much but is there a quick way to categorize or segregate pages into one cat that are in Category:All portals but not in Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion? It would need to be something dynamic and automated because no one wants to manually tag all these pages. Both are automatically populated but with over 1/3 of the namespace at MFD it is getting harder to identify pages that should be checked. Legacypac ( talk) 07:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I nominated Category:Films produced by B. F. Zeidman for deletion as a test case ( Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17). It was declined "without prejudice against a fresh wider nomination". I contend that, with a very few exceptions (e.g. Val Lewton), producers don't leave much of an imprint on the films they work on, and thus the vast majority of these categories are WP:NONDEFINING. How do I make a "wider nomination" without manually adding literally hundreds of entries to a mass Afd? Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
without manually adding literally hundreds of entries to a mass Afd. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
How do we apply CATDEF? What if a category is not commonly and consistently used by reliable sources to describe something, but it is a type of category that is often used? How does WP:COP fit in: is this a list of categories we should generally use, or that we may use for certain articles when appropriate? Big questions... but, more specifically, input at Talk:Michael_Gove#People_educated_at_Robert_Gordon's_College would be useful. (My view is apparent there!) Bondegezou ( talk) 21:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
You’re just not reading CATDEF the way most editors approach it. You should also read WP:OC, which says that “Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic.” (emphasis added) So as I said above, we don’t have to keep asking that question for every article once a category exists, and it makes absolutely no sense to do that in the context of education categories. Really even in the context of a category like one for chess players, it’s better understood as a question of inclusion criteria (defining what is meant by the category to determine who belongs in it) rather than asking the “definingness” question for every article. Maybe that will resolve your personal dilemma here, but regardless you have no basis for removing applicable and valid categories from articles. postdlf ( talk) 12:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I had a delve into the archives to see if discussion around the time the current guideline wording was agreed could shed further light on the matter. The current WP:CATDEF wording came from Uniplex in this edit on 29 Sep 2011, following discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Archive_14#proposing_adding_to_categorize_by_defining_characteristics and at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization/Archive_9#Non-defining_vs._trivial_clarification_proposed. The word "defining" had come earlier: it's in the very first draft of WP:OC (23 Nov 2006), with this (broader?) phrasing: "If you could easily leave something out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic." Back in May 2006, this guideline had a simpler formulation, including, "An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." Bondegezou ( talk) 12:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to know if all wikipedia titles are assigned to at least one semantic category (e.g., proteins, surgical procedures). If not how to find wikipedia titles that do not have any semantic category?
Emijenne ( talk) 15:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
{{
uncategorised}}
- it's not automatic. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
11:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)I am seeking approval for a bot to bypass double category redirects. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 17. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be welcome at Talk:Outline of Esperanto. -- Beland ( talk) 05:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
More eyeballs requested over here: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 27#Category:Works by Bella Thorne and here: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 3#Category:Works by Jimmy Somerville where there is a particularly WP:LAME edit war is kicking off. Mostly between two editors, who are doing a bizarre sort of opposed tag-team deletion, tagging the opposite categories.
Jimmy Somerville is a clearly notable musician with an extensive career and back-cataglogue. Clearly we should represent them here, and through categorization, but how? We have the following:
This is three levels of categorization, which many would see as too many – certainly for this few members. As I read WP:OCEPON, we should have "Works by ..." but not "<Artist>", unless we have more content needing it. The albums / songs split is perhaps a little verbose, but if we have that (it seems justified for a case this size) then we should still have "Works by ..." and the artist page should be in that.
There are half-a-dozen similar artists all listed here, and we need clarity in our general guidance first, not recurrent edit-warring item by item. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, regarding
WP:SORTKEY where it says Hyphens, apostrophes and periods/full stops are the only punctuation marks that should be kept in sort values. The only exception is the apostrophe in names beginning with O', which should be removed. For example, Eugene O'Neill is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Oneill, Eugene}}. All other punctuation marks should be removed.
- if only those 3
punctuation marks are kept, what happens with titles such as these:
! (Donnie Vie album),
"@",
( ) (album),
? (XXXTentacion album), [[/ (book)]] (valid redirect link, but breaks text here) and also
...Baby One More Time (song). The guideline was also quite on other signs such as these:
@ !*,
$ (Mark Sultan album),
^ (math),
* (arithmetic),
÷ (album),
& (album),
~ (iamthemorning album),
¿Dónde Está Santa Claus?. Would appreciate any help here. --
Gonnym (
talk)
21:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I found a disambiguation page in an article category, and wanted to look up the rules about it. But I found it difficult, since there is no mention in this article, nor in Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization nor Help:Category. The relevant info is at the very end of the Disambiguation article, at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Categories ( WP:DBC). I think it would be helpful to have a pointer to that here. I thought about putting this:
===Disambiguation pages=== {{see|Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Categories}} Disambiguation pages should not normally be placed in article content categories, but in disambiguation categories only.
between the "Articles" and the "Files/images" sections, but I wasn't sure if that would be the best approach... -- IamNotU ( talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
What's the best practice for the "by century" cats for people who span centuries? If a person was born in the 18th century and died in the 19th, do you put them in both Category:18th-century foos and Category:19th-century foos? Or just pick one? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Usually in both, as long as they were active in both of them. Though in categories by occupation, such as Category:18th-century writers, they should only be added to the century in which they were active in their field. Dimadick ( talk) 19:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are people allowed to create orphan categories? See Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories There are thousands of them. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
After I cleaned up regular articles, only three articles are still using <categorytree> tags, all outlines: Outline of German language, Outline of Esperanto, and Outline of Korean language. Normally I would expect outlines to have their own content independent from categories. Klarst, who has edited all three articles, has objected on Talk:Outline of Esperanto, saying that they are useful, but it's unclear to me why or whether these particular outlines are special. How do other editors feel about this? (This tag causes the listing of pages from the category to be transcluded into the outline.) -- Beland ( talk) 07:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Were these "not always baseball players from Foo is Fooian" edits legitimate? Even the category explanation on most of those categories says following: "This category is for Fooian baseball players who currently play or have played in Major League Baseball." 85.76.163.182 ( talk) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Can we get some opinions at Talk:Empathy/Archive 3#Removed category:autism? A permalink or the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised by the dispute over the inclusion of some cats on this article and would appreciate some more eyes and input. See Talk:The_Americans#Spy_thriller/drama_category_dispute. Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
There are many categories that use the turn of phrase committed suicide in the category title. I opened this RfC to establish if there is a general consensus to stop using this term which some believe is disparaging and has fallen out of favor.
RFC: The term committed suicide should not be used in category titles unless there is good reason to do so instead of alternatives such as: suicide / died by suicide / died by apparent suicide / killed themselve(s) or other alternatives. We can discuss case by case later. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs
17:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus here that we should not require this type of alternative language. On this much, even OP as the sole supporter seems to agree. Although, as before, there is no policy mandating nor prohibiting any particular phrasing on any particular article, there is also a fairly broad agreement that "committed" remains the more common phrasing. Otherwise, WP:COIN is the proper venue for discussing conflicts of interest, and such a discussion is not central to the issue of whether the community has broad support for this proposal, which it does not.--- Coffeeand crumbs 19:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
However, in 2015 one in eight articles still used this outdated, largely inaccurate and stigmatised phrase.[34] (emphasis added)
The phrase ‘committed suicide’ should not be used because it implies criminality, thereby contributing to the stigma experienced by those who have lost a loved one to suicide and discouraging suicidal individuals from seeking help.[35] by World Health Organization
“Attempted suicide”, “took their own life”, “died by suicide” and “ended their life” were however considered most acceptable. We argue that academic and media guidelines should promote use of these phrases.[36]
Suicide is a cause of death. Do we ever say that someone ‘committed cancer’ or ‘committed heart failure’, even when they may have lived lifestyles that contributed to such diseases (for example, smoking or having a high fat diet)? Even suggesting this sounds ludicrous, and yet every day we see such examples in relation to suicide. So, let us commit to being vigilant and challenge the use of stigmatising language whenever we hear it used in connection with suicide.[37]
They did not commit anything" is patently false. They commit suicide. It's the same meaning as the way we say "engineers commit code everyday" UNLESS you deliberately decide to give it another meaning. You're advocating for Wikipedia to help promote a fledgling campaign that sought to abolish usage of the phrase. The first link in your statement above stated what actual this is all about in no uncertain terms: " By changing the way we speak..." No, Wikipedia will not change the way people speak. That's no Wikipedia's business. Wikipedia is not a laboratory for forcibly testing emerging social changes like these. Giving that the community has explicitly rejected this change in various RfCs and here, honestly this is getting into territory of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. – Ammarpad ( talk) 06:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"Attempted" is fine...was a response to Ammarpad's assertion that
"attempted" is wrong too, independently of "commit". It is not an opinion on the use of "commit". Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
..."Wilson killed Brown", no one is confused that the killing was intentional.— I suggest that many/most convictions for manslaughter would invalidate that assertion - depending on your legal jurisdiction, "manslaughter" typically means killing someone (as a result of some other illegal action, but) without the intent to kill. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
"Wilson killed Brown", no one is confused that the killing was intentional, which to me implies that "Wilson killed Brown" is unambiguous about intention to kill. My point was that "killed" (Brown, or self) does not unambiguously denote intent - manslaughter is one example of killing someone without intent to kill. So saying that someone "killed X" could mean "killed intentionally" or it could mean "killed accidentally". Thus "killed themself" is ambiguous (it covers accidents) and less informative than "suicided". Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
suicided sounds and looks every bit as stupid as homicided— On the contrary "suicide" is a verb, and has been since the mid-19th century, according to SOED, so "suicided" is a perfectly legitimate conjugation. "Homicide" is only a noun, not a verb (in English), so "homicided" is not a word. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Historical meaning of the verb, "commit" and its association with suicide:
commit, v. (transitive) II. To do something wrong; to perpetrate. 9. a. To carry out (a reprehensible act); to perpetrate (a crime, sin, offence, etc.). Cf. to commit suicide at Phrases 6.
Phrases 6. transitive. to commit suicide: to end one's own life intentionally; to kill oneself. Also figurative and in extended use. Cf. sense 9a. Historically, suicide was regarded as a crime in many societies. Laws against suicide existed in English common law until 1961.
Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. (2015), https://oed.com/view/Entry/37160
Arguments for NOT using "commit suicide" are linked below. I post these sources simply as a point of reference, not to support a wholesale change in how Wikipedia talks about people who committed suicide.
Suicide and language: Why we shouldn't use the ‘C’ word https://www.psychology.org.au/publications/inpsych/2013/february/beaton
Language Matters: Why We Don't Say "Committed Suicide" https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-matters-committed-suicide
Why I Don’t Say My Son ‘Committed’ Suicide https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/October-2018/Why-I-Don-t-Say-My-Son-%E2%80%98Committed-Suicide
Commit* to change? A call to end the publication of the phrase ‘commit* suicide’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341764/
Suicide and Language https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/suicideandlanguage/
The language of suicide http://eprints.worc.ac.uk/1990/1/language_of_suicide.pdf
Suicide and language https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1229556/pdf/cmaj_159_3_239.pdf
Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom ( talk) 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I fear the pressure to avoid "suicide" is part of a push to keep everything subjectless and in passive voice to avoid the possibility of casting blame on anyone for doing anything offensiveis quite concerning—I usually feel grief rather than personal offence in response to a suicide. Hopefully I've misunderstood. Additionally, I feel that some arguments are a bit disingenuous. Surely we all understood that "commit" has multiple meanings in different contexts and that the meaning in the phrase "committed suicide" is, to quote Wiktionary, a derivation from the meaning
To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault. (Take a look at the bits on etymology at Suicide terminology#Controversy over use of "commit" and "committed".) That's what makes the term loaded, non-neutral and unsuitable for Wikipedia. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The argument that "commit suicide" is a loaded term purely because of the historical usage [...] is a linguistic fallacy— It may well be but that's an argument I didn't make—note the word "purely". I wrote plenty of other things relating to why the term is loaded; taken in conjunction, they form a coherent argument.
but other uses of the word "commit" are completely irrelevant to this discussion— Ding ding ding! Precisely the point I made. In all seriousness, it is only when you look at the whole comment that you see the full argument I am making. Please don't cherry-pick and strawman me. — Bilorv ( talk) 10:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
the meaning in the phrase "committed suicide" is, to quote Wiktionary, a derivation from the meaning To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault. (Take a look at the bits on etymology at Suicide terminology#Controversy over use of "commit" and "committed".) That's what makes the term loaded, non-neutral and unsuitable for Wikipedia.I don't think it's accurate to say that I'm "strawmanning" you or cherry-picking your comments. If to you that sentence doesn't mean that part of your reason is based on the etymology of "commit", then it's not my fault for misunderstanding you, but your fault for writing the opposite of what you meant. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 01:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Standard article naming conventions apply. Presumably that includes everything listed in WP:TITLE, including WP:UCRN. The most commonly used name is generally preferred. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 02:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Standard article naming conventions apply; in particular, do not capitalize regular nouns except when they come at the beginning of the title, which I read to mean grammatical conventions of article titles apply to category titles. That said, I wasn't around and haven't looked back to see if there's past discussion to explain the intent of that line. Cheers. Ajpolino ( talk) 03:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Given the overwhelming number of sources recommending "committed suicide" as the significantly inferior phrasing, are there any sources to support that "committed suicide" is a superior choice?
Wikipedia tends use technically correct terms and formal language unless they are so unclear that it be misunderstood by a reader. Are there any reliable sources that state that "died by suicide" is likely to be misunderstood?
Are there any other examples where Wikipedia deliberately uses a term that is recommended against by all professional, academic, clinical, journalistic, legal, military organisations?
If "committed suicide" is considered a neutral term, what are the sources that support this? Literally all sources I can find specifically contest that assertion.
In a general Google search: "committed suicide" = 20M, "died by suicide" = 10M, "killed him/herself" = 12M which are not huge differences. Is this sufficient to overrule all other arguments?
Similarly, are there any reliable sources that state that "died of suicide" is a euphamism?
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 03:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
|
|
Strongly 'died by suicide' to prevent suicidal contagion The reason a growing consensus in the psychological and media communities to use the term "died by suicide" is emerging is to prevent suicidal contagion. When suicide is mentioned in the media, it can lead to suicidal contagion among readers if not handled properly. Suicidal contagion is well documented and occurred in the aftermath of Robin Williams' death among many others. Suicides were 10% higher for four months after he died. It is recommended that media outlets do not focus on the methods of death or sensationalizes the suicide. It is also recommended to mention hotline numbers and other ways to get support if one is in crisis. [1] [2] As a person who has experienced depression myself, I don't want to research this deeply to keep my own mental health afloat, so I won't add many sources, but there are many. The consensus among medical/psychological organizations and media outlets is growing stronger. Wikipedia should follow suit. - TenorTwelve ( talk) 08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Publication | Articles that pointedly avoid "committed suicide" and use "died by suicide" |
---|---|
CNN | [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] |
The Wall Street Journal | [55] [56] [57] |
The New York Times | [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] |
NBC News | [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] |
CBS News | [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] |
ABC News | [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] |
NPR | [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] |
Variety | [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] |
The Cut by New York (magazine) | [92] [93] |
Other U.S. | [94] [95] |
Other UK | [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] |
Other Canadian | [104] [105] [106] [107] |
Other Australian | [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] |
Just some material for review. "Died by suicide" seems perfectly fine for all these organizations above that use it very COMMONly. --- Coffeeand crumbs 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Most of the sister categories use the form Category:deaths from X [114], so why not "Category:Deaths from suicide"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Support using alternatives. Here in the UK Wikipedia stands out as using out-moded terminology that makes you look less authoritative. The National Union of Journalists (surely an organisation that is against self-censorship) recommends against using "committed". NCISH (an influential research organisation into suicide in the UK) does not use "committed". There's also a problem with the word "suicide" because that's a legal term and it's hard to compare usage internationally: some deaths are counted as suicide in the UK, where the same death would not be counted as suicide in the US. "Killed themselves" is clearer, easier to understand, and works across different legal jurisdictions. DanBCDanBC ( talk) 16:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I found that this edit removed the tau with reference to WP:CAT#T and "templates are not to be placed in content categories". I think the removal is not merited by that and I would like to reinstate it.
As far as I see the removal wasn't discussed at the time. Tau has been mentioned before (I think 2012 was most relevant), but always kept.
First of all, the guideline page says "and occasional exceptions may apply", so there is room for a minor conflict. Secondly, usage of tau isn't limited to content categories. Thirdly, there are cases where "content" should be a valid categorization for templates. Finally, the term content categories isn't saying that other category types can't be based on content nor that they may not contain several types of pages.
Rejected An option is referring to a new subsection "clarification" or "exception" in WP:CAT#T: "There are cases where template content makes a useful categorization. An example would be error tracking categories, where templates and articles may appear both. Note that this example is an administrative category, for content categories it is rarely meaningful to include templates."
To make the text more clear, I instead suggest to replace the first paragraph with the text used elsewhere. It's repetitive to have it several times, but it makes the point as intended.
Completed " Templates are not articles, and thus do not belong in content categories. It is however a recommendation to place them in template categories – subcategories of Category:Wikipedia templates – to assist when looking for templates of a certain type. For example, Template:Schubert string quartets is categorized under Category:String quartets by composer templates, which should be a subcategory of Category:Music navigational boxes (type) but Template:Schubert string quartets should not be categorized under Category:Franz Schubert or Category:String quartets (content)."
Rejected "Pages in the template namespace (including template documentation) may also appear in maintenance categories and other administrative categories. When a category contains pages from several namespaces, it may be useful to sort each namespace separately, see § Sort keys."
Reading the last part as more general than for templates only, it could be stated in the section " Wikipedia administrative categories" instead, like this:
Completed "In maintenance categories and other administrative categories, pages may be included regardless of type. To sort each namespace separately, see § Sort keys. E.g. in an error tracking category it makes sense to group templates separately, because addressing the errors there may require different skills compared to fixing an ordinary article."
Completed To conclude the change, the tau is reinstated in sort order section, and a disclaimer may be added:
Completed Several Greek letters are instead used to group each type of page separately from other types (in categories that contain pages from several namespaces) and sort them after other pages. "Note: Not all of these types are suitable for inclusion in content categories. For one-type categories, such as template categories, greek letter grouping is not useful."
@ Woodensuperman: Agree? JAGulin ( talk) 15:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA#Noongar sub-category for places with Noongar sites, on the inclusion of some places directly in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Noongar, and whether a more specific subcategory would be appropriate. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I have come across a Category issue that I don't understand so am hopeful all you Cat. mavens out there can educate me on this. For instance, recently Category:American country singer-songwriters was removed from the Hank Williams biographical article but was added to the Category:Hank Williams. It seems to me that the man himself should be in the singer-songwriter Category rather than having this Category be a sub-cat to the subject's biographical Category but maybe not... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 19:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
This is all incorrect because you’re talking about the article that defines the eponymous category. The article should be in the same categories as the corresponding category. postdlf ( talk) 00:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears this discussion and the previous one above are related. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 07:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Michael basically said that the article should only be in the eponymous category"– I wrote nothing of the sort. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 14:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also."If only one member of that subcategory belongs to the parent category, the parent category is inappropriate. Rathfelder's edits at Category:Johann Sebastian Bach, Category:Ludwig van Beethoven, Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Category:William Shakespeare ought to be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 00:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Rathfelder:, you know for a fact that I also disapprove of edits like this. Why are you choosing just one of the categories that Merge Records is in to add to Category:Merge Records? Why not all of them? This is arbitrary and against consensus. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'd like to start by saying that database reports exist to serve editors. A page or category being listed in a report might mean that action is needed, it might mean that there's an edge case, it might mean that the report criteria need to be adjusted, or it could simply be an informative or statistical report where no action is warranted at all.
I recently changed the criteria for the uncategorized categories ( configuration) database report, with Rathfelder, based on my understanding of the English Wikipedia's categorization system. After skimming this discussion, I would like some clarity about categories such as Category:Barack Obama. Are Michael Bednarek and Oculi saying that Category:Barack Obama is inappropriately categorized? I ask because, if this view is correct, we probably want a miscategorized categories ( configuration) database report or similar to address this category and others. However, if Category:Barack Obama is appropriately categorized in categories such as Category:Presidents of the United States (along with all the other presidents), how is this category distinguishable from a category such as Category:Go Daddy? Or Category:Britney Spears, which is categorized in Category:Spears family. Is this incorrect?
Given that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of examples of categories being categorized ( arbitrary edit from September 2015), there doesn't seem to be clear consensus on this issue one way or another at present. I hunted down this discussion after noticing that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars decided that a compromise position would be making categories such as Category:Wikipedia categories named after British musical groups no longer hidden. (cc: VegaDark, who's my personal category authority) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 07:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that the distinction between topic categories and set categories is lost on many editors, and the guidance says explicitly that it can be ignored. For example Category:Harare contains all sorts of stuff, most of which is not a capital city. Category:Humans contains of lots of articles not about humans. Category:Walt Disney contains all sorts of stuff about the company, not the man. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
distinction between topic categories and set categories is lost on many editors. Perhaps, the page Wikipedia:Categorization should be improved? It refers to "topic categories" four times before giving the definition in the fifth out of six sections. Should section "Category tree organization" or at least the paragraph
There are two main kinds of category ...be moved up? Getting readers acquintated with the concepts earlier in the page might be helpful. — andrybak ( talk) 05:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that categories should almost always be included in some other category. Category:Merge Records should certainly be categorized somewhere; though I find it excessive to suggest that it must be in all of Merge Records' categories. Perhaps there should be a guideline for which categories contain eponymous categories, and which do not. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I was just wondering about this, and glad to find there was an existing discussion. But sad to see that there's no clear answer. Having read this discussion (and
a related earlier one), I think I'm with Michael Bednarek in the "Baracktrema obamai should not be categorized as a US president" camp.
Here's a question for
Rathfelder,
Power~enwiki, or anyone else on the other side of the debate: why is it intrinsically bad for a category like
Category:Barack Obama or
Category:Walt Disney to have no parent category? Is it just the maintenance issue of no longer being able to easily find problematic categories by looking at orphans? If so, couldn't this be addressed by modifying the db report to exclude descendants of
Category:Eponymous categories?
Colin M (
talk)
04:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I'm with Michael Bednarek in the "Baracktrema obamai should not be categorized as a US president" camp: inclusion of "Baracktrema obamai" in Category:Barack Obama does not mean it is a US president. Parent category to child category relation does not always imply inclusion of articles or subcategories over category boundaries. Insect "Baracktrema obamai", named after the president, is obviously related to the topic "Barack Obama". And the insect species is not part of a set "Presidents of the United States". The distinction between "topic categories" and "set categories" is described in Wikipedia:Categorization § Category tree organization. — andrybak ( talk) 06:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also.. Category:Presidents of the United States is, as you say, a set category. If Category:Barack Obama is to be placed in that category, then all or almost all pages in Category:Barack Obama should belong to the set Category:Presidents of the United States (i.e. they should be presidents). However, of the hundreds of pages that recursively belong to Category:Barack Obama, only one is a POTUS. So, that seems like a violation of WP:SUBCAT. Where am I going wrong? Colin M ( talk) 19:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Parent category being a set is not inherited by Category:Barack ObamaIs this notion (that, semantically, topic categories shouldn't be considered to inherit from set categories) written somewhere in policy? It seems like it would make queries on set categories a lot more complicated. If, for example, I want to generate a list of all articles on novelists, I can't just do a deep category search on Category:Novelists, I need to instead recursively search the category but skip any eponymous categories (or more generally, any topic categories). Colin M ( talk) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
So where's the problem there?There is no problem with the two scenarios you present. I don't know what I wrote would have made you think that I objected to them. They are irrelevant to the very specific issue I am raising, which concerns putting topic categories inside set categories.
has there been confusion on the part of readers, or something?Not that I'm aware of. I think that only a miniscule fraction of one percent of our readers, to borrow a phrase from you, pay any attention to categories, tbh. But I think this whole discussion (and the similar ones that can be found in the archives, on other talk pages, and in back-and-forth edit summaries) is evidence of confusion on the part of editors, who disagree on how to handle these situations, with no clear answer to be found in policy. Colin M ( talk) 02:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
There is not a clear distinction between topic categories and set categories, and the policy says clearly that this is OK. So most editors are unaware of the distinction that gets some people here so excited. And most readers can see why creatures or places named after famous people are put in their eponymous category. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Why the links WP:TOPICCAT and WP:SETCAT are not working? They only link to the correct section if I click on the link available on the redirect page. CamiloCBranco ( talk) 09:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
redirect=no
to the url. You are already at the place they normally link to so there isn't much reason to click them unless you want to see their redirect page. If you want to test that they go to the right place then click the link on the redirect page.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
11:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I thought I'd bring this up here, since it's a fairly substantial change, and the talk pages for individual categories probably don't have many watchers.
So there's a large family of stand-alone list articles that are organized by country (e.g. Grading systems by country, List of palaces, International availability of McDonald's products), and I think it would be useful to capture this property in a category. Furthermore, because there are so many articles like this, it would be useful to divide them into subclasses such as:
There kind of exists a category like the one I described above: Category:Lists by country. And there exist categories under that (actually grandchildren, via Category:Lists by topic and country) analogous to the example subclasses I gave above: Category:Law lists by country, Category:Lists of buildings and structures by country
If we treat Category:Lists by country as containing list articles that are organized by country, the problem comes with violations of WP:SUBCAT (similar to the long discussion above). Category:Lists by country contains a bunch of child categories such as Category:Abkhazia-related lists, Category:Afghanistan-related lists, Category:Albania-related lists, etc. none of which contain lists organized by country.
This is also true of the grandchild categories like Category:Law lists by country, which contains child categories like Category:Australian law-related lists, Category:Canada law-related lists, etc.
The ultimate source of confusion is that "by country" is being used to mean two very different things: the organization of items within individual articles, and the organization of category hierarchies.
I see two possible solutions (with the second one being my preferred option, as I think it's more easily accomplished)
Thoughts? Colin M ( talk) 20:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I was reading about the fascinating life of Noor Inayat Khan and I noticed that the article has 67 categories. While an egregious example, it's not uncommon for articles, particularly biographical articles, to end up with large numbers of categories.
We have WP:CATDEF and we have WP:OC, yet practice is often leading to examples like this. It seems to me that we're going wrong somewhere; no articles should be anywhere near 67 categories! Sure, we can trim the categories for this example, but I wanted to raise these general questions:
@ Colin M: Re: the "people from" categories, the answer is all of the above. That is how they have been applied for the decade and a half that we have had a category system, with "from" really taken to mean "having an association with", whether that association is born or raised there, worked there, etc. The "defining" standard really doesn't help us with these as the "people from" categories are more about standard biographical details (unless it helps you to think of those details as "defining" or outlining someone's life). @ Bondegezou: The same is true of alumni categories, no one is "defined" as having gone to a particular school. Yet there is clearly a consensus to maintain and apply alumni categories. So you are either not reading WP:DEFCAT thoroughly and correctly in a manner that is consistent with consensus-supported practice, or that guideline is incorrect (I think more the former).
With any category there may be a question of threshold. If you got a few poems published in your school newspaper, should you be categorized as a poet? If you went to a university for a day and dropped out, should you have its alumni category applied? But otherwise if an article crosses whatever threshold is appropriate for that topic, and factually meets the category's meaning (whether clear from its name or from stated criteria), then the category should be applied. That is going to inevitably result in some articles having many more categories, for the most accomplished individuals or those who have especially diverse backgrounds or a number of careers throughout their lives (see for example, Barack Obama, Winston Churchill, etc.). But we don't delete or remove valid and applicable categories just to reach some arbitrary number or quota (cf. Amadeus: "There are simply too many notes."). postdlf ( talk) 16:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Cryptic kindly provided a dataset of 59,553 articles. The number of categories looks to approximately follow a geometric distribution with parameter p = 0.18. The mean number of categories is 5.4, but it is better to look at percentiles. The median (50th percentile) is 4. The lower quartile is 2 and the upper quartile is 7. That means that three quarters of articles have no more than 7 categories. The 95th percentile is 14. That is 95% of all articles have 14 or fewer categories. The 99th percentile is 22. The top 5 articles for numbers of categories in this sample were: International_Convention_for_the_Regulation_of_Whaling (102 categories), Duke_Nukem_3D (72 categories), George_Santayana (72 categories), Jeremy_Bentham (70 categories) and Charles_Woodmason (66 categories).
Biographical articles have significantly more categories than other articles (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.0001). Non-biographical articles have a median of 3 categories (interquartile range 2-5), while biographical articles have a median of 8 categories (interquartile range 6-11). The 95th and 99th percentiles for non-biographical categories are 9 and 15, but 20 and 29 for biographical categories.
There is a relationship between article size and number of categories: a non-parametric correlation, Kendall's τb = 0.21, p < 0.0001. Above about 5000 bytes, the number of categories does not increase. Below 5000 bytes, the average number of categories increases as if to an asymptote. Below about 1000 bytes, the number of categories on average increases linearly.
If we take a 5000 byte cut-off as indicating 'mature' articles, non-biographical articles have a median of 4 categories (interquartile range 2-6), while biographical articles have a median of 10 categories (interquartile range 7-14). The 95th and 99th percentiles for non-biographical categories are 11 and 19, but 24 and 35 for biographical categories.
This would suggest that for reasonably mature articles (above 5000 bytes), a biographical article with more than 35 categories or a non-biographical article with more than 19 categories is very unusual and may warrant closer examination. So Colin M is right: Noor Inayat Khan would appear to be a freak occurrence: the initial 67 categories was extreme, and even the current 41 categories puts the article well into the top 1% for mature, biographical articles.
A typical, mature non-biographical article will have 4 categories and a typical, mature biographical article will have 10 categories. Are we happy with that? Is that the intent of our categorisation activities? Should biographical categories be routinely more heavily categorised than non-biographical categories? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. I don't think sources consistently describe Hilary Duff as an author or an investor. I haven't attempted to quantify what % of sources that talk about her mention those occupations, but I would guess it's less than 10%, as a first-order estimate. See also this quote from WP:COPDEF:
Similarly, celebrities commercializing a fragrance should not be in the perfumers category; not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.. I would say that Hilary Duff's endeavours in writing, fashion design, jewelry design, etc. are very much along these lines. But I recognize that others may have different interpretations of "commonly and consistently" - that was the whole point of that bullet. That a lot of this comes down to varying interpretations of policy, rather than brazen violations of policy. Colin M ( talk) 04:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:SORTKEY says To place entries after the main alphabetical list, use sort keys beginning with tilde ("~").
I tried doing this for the sortkey of a
subcategory and it instead sorted that subcategory to the beginning of the list, before the alphabetical entries. Is this piece of advice wrong/outdated? Does it only apply to categorizing pages and not categories?
Semi-related question: is there a recommended sort key to use to distinguish tracking/hidden subcats from regular ones? None of the Greek letters mentioned in WP:SORTKEY seem to apply, but I would think it would make sense to sort them to the end, after the regular categories. Colin M ( talk) 19:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Portal categorization is not included in guideline, Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines/Categorizing. Could I include it, with the {{ Empty section}} template? The goal is to attract editors who can help update the categorization of portals, which as it conflicts with WP: SMALLCAT. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 14:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Should categories such as "Fiction about horses" be applied in cases where the horses are anthropomorphic, or should these categories only be used when the horses are standard horses? Such we create categories such as "Fiction about anthropomorphic horses"? Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago ( talk) 16:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I have created a new user script for sorting categories alphabetically; you can read its documentation at User:Alex 21/script-categoriessort. -- / Alex/ 21 02:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I've come across several different non-alphanumeric characters being used as sort keys or sort key prefixes: *, +, >, and . to name a few, sometimes together. It seems clear that this guide should either:
What are your preferences regarding (A) or (B)? And if (A), does anyone have any good info to start with? It seems that "+" is being used to sort "Women (in) x" categories, but the rest I have no idea. — swpb T • go beyond • bad idea 21:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
*
and +
are already mentioned in
WP:SORTKEY #2 and #10 -
Evad37 [
talk
23:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)The current policy seems to suggest that only defining categories are allowed. But in practice, it seems this is very rarely followed, and if this policy was enforced, a ton of categories should be deleted. For example, consider Category:Censorship by medium. Should a work that has been censored in some form be included in this category tree? Very few works are actually 'defined' by it, even if it is something famous. Recently, for example, I worked on an article about this book: Rozmowy ze Stanisławem Lemem. It has been censored, and it is an important issue discussed in reviews/literary analysis, but is this a defining characteristic? Probably not, but it is arguable, some entries simply don't mention some aspects in lead (consider Noah_(2014_film)#Muslim_response_and_censorship which does vs Eyes_Wide_Shut#Studio_censorship_and_classification which doesn't, borderline editorial judgement - and IMHO it is clear both entries should be in the same category). Or consider Editing of anime in distribution (which is about censorship in anime). Does it makes sense to have an article discussing censorship in a movie or show, but not being able to categorize said show as being censored? The ability to have a dynamically curated list is VERY helpful. And while overcategorization is an problem, we have to consider usefulness, but if we enforce DEFINE 90% of the entries from such categories should be removed, with many categories disappearing. I think the educational potential of having a well populated category of censored works is very significant (and as usual, there is no other place on the internet that can do this instead). Does our policy cover this dimension? For another thought, I thought about Category:Human rights, where many entries are 'related' to human rights, but probably don't need to be in such category. However, sometimes it simply means they need a more nuanced one, some of which don't exist. Does our policy allow for such entries to stay in less relevant categories while waiting for a better one to be created? I think it should. Overall, I think this policy focuses too much on the technical aspects (clutter reduction) while ignoring more major issues (building an encyclopedia, educational ones, etc.). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Given Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 17#RFC: Categories with committed suicide in title, categories created by Burning Beaker ( talk · contribs) need deletion. I've made them aware of the current community consensus on "died by suicide." Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 23:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I've also reverted Burning Beaker. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 23:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Other editors' opinions are sought as to whether ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Australian women journalists should be a non-diffusing subcategory of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Australian women non-fiction writers. See Category talk:Australian women journalists#non-fiction writers and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category:Australian_women_journalists&action=history. Discuss at Category talk:Australian women journalists#non-fiction writers rather than here please, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I've engaged user Ryubyss ( talk · contribs) on their talk page regarding their categorization of certain articles in a new Category they created, called Category:Social justice terminology. I've done my best to explain WP:CATDEF as a basis for categorization, but I'm not sure they're getting it, and in any case, my knowledge of categorization isn't as deep as I would like. It would be helpful and appreciated if someone with a better background in categorization could respond at this discussion and correct any mistakes I may have made in my attempts at explanation, and perhaps add your own thoughts to the discussion. Thanks in advance, Mathglot ( talk) 22:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
At Disappearance of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow only three of the four cats show up at the bottom. I've verified they are all valid. If I reorder them then which of the four doesn't show changes, but I can't get all four to show up. What's wrong? Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 02:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion on how to handle these categories has opened here. ミラ P 19:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Category:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is starting to become a huge, sprawling monster, as subcats are created for all types of Category:Events postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, all types of Category:Events cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.
This is becoming pointless, because as country after country goes into some kind of lockdown, just about everything everywhere is being postponed or cancelled.
Since postponed-or-cancelled-due-to-coronavirus is the new normal for 2020, it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
So I propose that Category:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic should contain only articles which are substantively about the impact of the virus, and that all all other articles should be purged.
So for example, Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the restaurant industry in the United States should remain in the category tree, but Category:Music events cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic should be deleted. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments are invited at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Should_Category:University_of_Canberra_people_be_removed_from_Category:People_from_Canberra? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments are invited on a disagreement about category diffusion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Diffusing vs non-diffusing confusion. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A disagreement has broken out on Jerry Givens, a victim of the present pandemic. He is currently in Category:Deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Virginia, which is (by way of Category:Deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic) a subcategory of Category:2020 deaths. My understanding of WP:SUBCAT is that if the article is in a subcategory, it is generally not appropriate to also include it in the parent category. RFD ( talk · contribs) disagrees, and has expressed his position here. Is there some exception to the general rule for year-of-death categories, such that articles should be in both the parent category and the sub-category? Or am I misunderstanding WP:SUBCAT all together? Steve Smith ( talk) 17:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Australian_women_categories which has led to Category:21st-century women writers no longer having an Australian presence as they have decided to do away with Category:21st-century Australian women writers. Pam D 22:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Some of our more complex hierarchies analyse things by multiple parameters, and may then group them in two ways, e.g. Category:People by occupation and nationality and Category:People by nationality and occupation.
We have been mostly using the wording "…by foo and bar" since 2008 if not before, see e.g. this CFD which was justified as "for consistency with the other sub-cats of Category:Categories by country and city."
However, it is not intuitively clear to most people which way round the contents of "…by foo and bar" will be.
Would it be clearer to use "…by foo by bar"? This is currently used in at least the Category:Television by country hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#People_by_time_period. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This page states:
Default sort keys are sometimes defined even where they do not seem necessary—when they are the same as the page name, for example—in order to prevent other editors or automated tools from trying to infer a different default.
This is a silly reason to repeat the page title unnecessarily, simply because page titles change! I've come across a myriad of pages that have outdated defaultsorts that no one has noticed or updated (and with tools like HotCat, people who add categories don't even see them). It doesn't make sense to defensively put something that gets very little visibility (as it is not visible directly on the article page itself). If tools are inserting erroneous defaultsorts, they should be fixed or changed so they need manual confirmation. The default sorting behavior of using the current article title works just fine. Overrides are meant specifically when the page title would lead to an incorrect sort, not because some guy once wrote a crappy bot. Opencooper ( talk) 15:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The RFC is at WT:Overcategorization#RfC_on_exceptions_to_WP:OCAWARD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Proposal:_a_bot_to_place_eponymous_categories_as_the_first_category_on_articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at WP:AWNB#categories: People of the Australian frontier wars, People associated with massacres of Indigenous Australians. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the category Category:Thai emigrants to the United States, which is under Category:American people of Thai descent, editor JDDJS keeps trying to add this to Hong Chau, who is an American of Vietnamese descent. He is including it because her Vietnamese-born parents were in a Thai refugee camp. Is this really appropriate? She is not of Thai descent, and the category makes it look like she is. Her background seems too complex to warrant using this category. Someone exploring this category without context will assume she is Thai. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Can please somebody with more knowledge about categorization check if this special already existing category is acceptable for WK... I have some doubts... CommanderWaterford ( talk) 19:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A question has arisen on category sorting. User:Jweiss11 has been changing categorization sorts to use initial caps even where such usage is contrary to normal grammatical and usage rules. For example, "1951 Dayton Flyers football team" is being changed to "1951 Dayton Flyers Football Team", and "Dayton Flyers football" to "Dayton Football". This seems very counterintuitive to me, but Jweiss indicates this is necessary because Wikipedia's sorting process only recognizes words with initial caps. Is this correct? What is the rationale for a system that seems so contrary to normal usage rules? Thanks. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
“ | The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. | ” |
— Wikipedia:Categorization |
The sense I get from skimming Wikipedia:Categorization is that categories are about article topics. However, in a few recent CFDs, there has been discussion about categories based on article titles. Is there a place that there is clearly opposed in guidelines or a discussion to which I can refer? Am I misunderstanding Wikipedia:Categorization? Daask ( talk) 22:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Page watchers may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion § RFC on including disambiguators in category names. Izno ( talk) 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there somewhere that categories like Category:Criminals from Minnesota have already been discussed w/re who qualifies to be included? I'm wondering whether anyone who has ever been convicted of/plead guilty to any crime gets included, or if they need to be noteworthy for that crime. This feels like something that has likely been discussed and decided, so sorry if I missed finding it in the archives. (I started wondering at George Floyd, where Category:American people convicted of robbery is certainly appropriate, but at what point do we categorize a person as a "criminal"?) Thanks for any help! —valereee ( talk) 13:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Per item #5 in WP:SORTKEY, it says we should keep only hyphens, apostrophes and full stops/periods from the sortkey. So should the article .hack//G.U. Trilogy be sorted as "hackGU Trilogy" or ".hackG.U. Trilogy" or something else? I would think that since these "dots" are not operating as full stops or periods, that they should be dropped, but I'm not sure. I would note that the former would sort the article under "H" in categories, but the latter would sort under a "." header, so it does seem to make a significant difference. BOVINEBOY 2008 22:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please change this to use lower case delta rather than upper case delta. See sentence at top of section. Naraht ( talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
. IMO, should be lower case delta, that is"Δ" (delta)
. Naraht ( talk) 17:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)"δ" (delta)
Your attention is requested re: the use of the All Included tag on Category:Labor disputes in the United States.-- User:Namiba 19:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this, intended to lead to proposed additions on the main category policy pages, at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Where_does_it_actually_say_you_should_not_just_empty_a_category_you_don't_like?. After a deal of discussion, voting is underway on a revised draft, the idea being to take it to the policy pages, especially here with approval from Cfd and the project. Johnbod ( talk) 14:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Editorial opinion is sought at Category talk:Tourist attractions in Perth, Western Australia#Context. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@ BrownHairedGirl: I see that you recently made a series of edits, any example of which was removing Category:Conference Carolinas from Category:Conference Carolinas templates with the edit summary "remove templates and project pages and user pages from content categories"? Was there a discussion or policy change concerning templates and template categories being categorized under content categories? Thanks, Jweiss11 ( talk) 18:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Templates are not articles, and thus do not belong in content categories
Here's the cleanup task which is possible now that the templates have been removed from content cats.
My approach is to look for pages in the user namespace, in the subcats of Category:Main topic classifications. I start at a shallow depth, and increase the depth of the search as I clean up each level.
This evening, I have been cleaning to a depth of 5 subcats, using https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17278491. In nearly every case, the action needed is to use @ DannyS712's handy script User:DannyS712/Draft no cat, which is a one-click fix.
Here are the 55 such edits which I have done so far this evening.
When I have cleaned to a depth of 5, I will increase the depth to 6, and clean that. Then depth 7, and so on.
At greater depths, the Petscan search times out unless it is run at a low-usage time-of-day. I find that around 0700 UTC is the best time for deep searches. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Category:American white supremacist politicians
What should the criteria be for inclusion in this category? I am thinking multiple reliable sources that specifically call the politician a white supremacist. Otherwise it becomes a magnet for original research. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)