![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Hey guys, I just went to go and look for a category for male film directors, but saw that we didn't have any. I noticed that we did have a category for women film directors ( Category:American women film directors), but that male directors go in just the general category. Given the amount of flack we got over not having a category for male novelists, I think that it'd be a good idea to do this with directors as well before someone catches on and we get more hell from the media. I haven't the foggiest how to get this started other than posting here, though.
I'm reposting this here since I'd put this in another forum, but I do think that this would be a good thing to do - there's already precedent. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Every category in Main topic classifications that I have examined so far has several supercats. That seems odd for something that is supposed to be at the top of the article tree. I could see maybe one additional supercat leading up to Fundamental categories, but not several that are often way down the tree. Some categorizations are circular. For example, Knowledge -> Information -> Knowledge; both of these categories are fundamental. Knowledge has 10 supercats, so it's not surprising to find a loop. The categories in Fundamental categories are not quite as bad, but there is Concepts -> Thought -> Concepts. Perhaps they should all be trimmed so there is only one route to each of the top categories? RockMagnetist( talk) 23:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is another example where a fundamental category is found 8 levels down its own tree: Concepts -> Cognition -> Consciousness -> Mind -> Concepts in metaphysics -> Philosophical concepts -> Concepts by field -> Concepts. RockMagnetist( talk) 23:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to show that these loops are everywhere I look, I'll do two more: Life -> Biology -> Life sciences -> Life. Also, Life -> Life sciences -> Natural sciences -> Nature -> Universe (so Universe contains another main topic and a fundamental topic). RockMagnetist( talk) 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Following up on the "Study of X" theme, Chronology is a curious choice for a main topic. Time would be better, although turn categories such as Dimension and Physical quantities. Still, it's so basic that it might be a good choice. Thoughts? RockMagnetist( talk) 22:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am seeing a need for a category that refers to sets/groups/collections in the broad sense of a bunch of things. See, for example, my attempts to categorize Theories, where Category:Conceptual systems was the best I could come up with but didn't seem quite right. There are probably many more examples, but it's late and I can't think of them. RockMagnetist( talk) 06:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday I posted WT:RE#Redirects in article categories, workaround, which is relevant here. Now I post this cross-reference at WT:CAT-R too. -- P64 ( talk) 17:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
template:Images has been proposed for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_12#Template:Images -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 03:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a question at: Wikipedia_talk:Defining#Li Ka-shing. I would appreciate your views. Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I recently created Category:NAIA football navigational boxes, but I don't see it in either of its two parent categories, Category:American college football navigational boxes and Category:NAIA football. Have others had this sort of issue? Any idea what's going on? Thanks, Jweiss11 ( talk) 05:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A user has placed a request for renaming all of the video game console generations pages (eg, History of video game consoles (third generation) → Third generation of video game consoles).
These pages are used to categorize eras in video gaming history not only on Wikipedia but due to what some believe is a documentable case of citogenesis, has probably helped form a standard naming convention outside of Wikipedia as well. So these pages have some level of influence and visibility beyond this site.
The reason I'm here is that the current structure of the category names is likely flawed and not up to Wikipedia standard, but historically this often becomes a contentious change debating semantics (the last time this came up it sure did) and I believe that if it's going to be changed it should be changed to a Wikipedia standard form. I just want this current vote to have high enough visibility to get a clear consensus so that we're not back here in a couple of years when the next new crop of editors decides they have a better way to phrase the category titles.
So I'm bringing this debate to a greater audience so we can hear your thoughts and help us video game editors in the process. Thanks for your attention and I hope to see your thoughts on this vote. BcRIPster ( talk) 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorization does not seem to have instructions on how to propose a new category, for discussion or for a more experienced editor to simply create. I suggest that said article should be modified to mention it.
I have noticed many disambiguation articles with multiple entries that are chemicals, usually enzymes, for example, HPSE. There is a Category:Science disambiguation pages, which seems awfully broad for this and contains only 4 articles, one of which is an enzyme disambiguation page, DHQD. I would like to propose a subcategory of Category:Science disambiguation pages: Category:Chemical disambiguation pages with its sub Category:Enzyme disambiguation pages, but I want a discussion first. If this is to be done, I think templates should be made, or existing templates modified, e.g. {{Disambiguation|chem}} and {{Disambiguation|enzyme}}.
Also note that DHQD has been set up as a member of Category:Enzyme set index pages. This is a possible path for HPSE and many other pages, but I am not sure if it is the best path. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 17:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I notice that a user has recently created a separate category tree for Ethnic Greek people. This user (@ Johnpacklambert:) is now blocked indefinitely, maybe for other purposes although it seems relative to BLP categorization. My first reaction would tend against the creation such a category tree, however I'd like to listen here what the opinions are.
I understand that "ethnic" categories are sometimes useful, and I understand the difference between ethnic Greek and Greek (although these terms may each cover very different concepts at different times in history) but I think that:
For these reasons, I think that this new category tree does shows more problems than advantages, and I would tend towards its deletion. However, again, I'd like to listen here what the opinions are. (Also notified Project Greece.) Place Clichy ( talk) 16:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Johnpacklambert: I was thinking of nominating this new hierarchy for merger or deletion, but most of the sub-categories have now been emptied. Are you abandoning it? – Fayenatic L ondon 19:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Johnpacklambert: Why do you consider that the Greek people category is restricted to the citizens of the current state of Greece? This seems like a personal interpretation to me, and not the way Wikipedia categories work. By strictly applying what you suggets, this would mean that there were no Greek people prior to 1821, or that one of the greatest Greeks of all time, Eleftherios Venizelos, was not himself Greek as he was a Cretan at a time when Crete was still Ottoman. As discussed above, the will to "stop people putting non-Greek nationals in Greek categories" is not worth the creation of a parallel category tree that can never be correctly populated, among other problems. May I have the friendly suggestion to use other categories such as Ancient Greeks, Byzantine people, Greek Cypriot people, People of Greek descent etc. for the purpose you are looking for. @ Cplakidas and Fayenatic london: I can see that more Ethnic Greek categories have showed up in the last few days, despite this discussion. I suggest nominating these categories for deletion with a link to this discussion (a process I am not familiar with), for the categories that are not already empty. Place Clichy ( talk) 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I have been involved in a friendly discussion with @
Johnpacklambert: regarding the same issue with some Albanian related categories, similarly starting with the word "Ethnic". Most of them are empty. I am aware that John had nothing but good intentions of formalizing the categories according to a uniform logic. Anyway, the topic of ethnicity vs nationality in the Balkans is much more complicated. When we talk about Greek, Albanians, Bulgarians we talk about a nation, or conscience, not only ethnicity, and vice versa. Not really connected to the citizenship. The translation "Albanian mathematician" to "mathematician from Albania (Republic of Albania)" may seem right but it is not correct. It may work for Americans, US citizen = National of US, citizen of US, but not for the rest of the nationalities. Saying "...an ethnic Greek..." or "...ethnic Albanian..." can be used inside the articles to give more detailed information about people's origin, not in the very first sentence, infobox, or categories.
As an example, we have an article that states "
Eshref Ademaj (1940–1994) was an ethnic Albanian mathematician..." - instead of saying "Eshref Ademaj (1940–1994) was an Kosovar Albanian mathematician", or "Kosovar mathematician", or "Albanian mathematician from Kosovo". The word "ethnic" does not fit here. The categories follow the same logic. I don't know any non-ethnic Albanian or non-ethnic Greek btw. You are Albanian or you're not. We also have more specific denominations, as
Kosovar Albanians,
Venetian Albanians,
Ottoman Albanians, etc.
How do we call Carlo Giuseppe Verdi (1785–1867) or
Temistocle Solera (1815-1878)? An "ethnic Italian" or "Italian"?--
Mondiad (
talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that it makes little sense that category:lighting is in category:light sources. Lighting as a service and candlepower are quite rightly in cat:lighting, but are not light sources for instance. I think that both categories should be direct subcategories of category:light and that a very large wodge of both categories' entries should be moved to category:types of lamp and that made a subcategory of both of them. Spinning Spark 18:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried to add Category:21st-century cricketers to Category:21st-century Indian cricketers but I see the following message:
What should I do? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)please ping me
I see that the number of articles in Category:Monthly clean up category (Uncategorized pages) counter keeps growing. Just wondering if anyone here ever tries to tackle it? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Don't know if it's meaningful to mention it here too but WP:CFD has a backlog of some 150 category discussions to be closed. I left a similar note on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I've created a matrix showing which combinations of namespace and high level categories should/do not contain pages. For example, there should be no user talk pages below Category:Articles and there should be no articles below Category:Wikipedians.
The matrix still has quite a few "TBD"s (e.g. is it ever appropriate for a disambiguation page or a talk page to be in Category:Articles?) - I'm hoping to fix many of these before the matrix might be moved into Wikipedia namespace. Suggestions for other ways the matrix might be improved are welcome. DexDor (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This may have been around for a while, but I have only just discovered:
I had wasted hours trying to figure out why a category tree trawl using WP:AWB had produced some weird anomalies (categories which should never be subcats of the one I started from), but CatCycle solved the problem in under 60 seconds. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to join this discussion about whether or not to make the WP:SMALLCAT guideline more specific. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't this seem a trifle broad (no pun intended)? The vast majority of films have a female lead character. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Directors is for directors of creative or artistic productions: films, theatre, television, etc.
This is well-summarised in the categ description: for people who direct stage, television, radio, video, or motion picture productions for entertainment, information, or instruction. They are responsible for creative decisions, such as interpretation of script, choice of guests, set design, sound, special effects, and choreography.
The topical subcats are unambiguously named: Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors. But the head category, and national subcats of Category:Directors by nationality (e.g. Category:French directors) are ambiguous. The unqualified title "director" probably applies most commonly to directors of companies, and the title "director" is widely used for divisional managers in organisations of all types. This ambiguity has already led to Category:Corporate directors being added [2] as a subcat of Category:Directors by genre or type.
I would like to put together a group CFR to rename these categories to something which clarifies their scope without becoming too verbose. With so many categories involved, there are technical advantages to proposing a specific title (or a few options for title), so I would welcome suggestions.
My ideas so far:
Using "directors of creative worka" would lead to the following renamings:
Note that all the categs which would be renamed are {{ container}} categories (even if not tagged as such). Individual directors would still be categorised under Category:French film directors, Category:Irish theatre directors, Category:American television directors, etc.
Those are more verbose than I would like, but they don't appear too ugly or unwieldy, and they avoid the ambiguity with corporate roles. Any thoughts?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BrownHairedGirl (
talk •
contribs) 03:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I initiated at request for comment at Talk:Rafik Yousef#Request for comment regarding categorisation on the 12th of February but am yet to receive any replied. So input would be most welcome. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Your thoughts are requested at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT, mental illnesses, and learning disabilities. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there a tool that would detect circular categorization when given a category title? Something like Information -> Knowledge -> Information.-- OsamaK ( talk) 17:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Per this RfC and this CfD, Category:Fair use in... images should be moved to Category:Otherwise uncategorizable non-free images with fair use rationale. Could a category-expert do the honors? Eman235/ talk 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at this use of CatCycle.
It shows how in only 32 steps, Category:Expatriate sportspeople in the Soviet Union is a sub-cat of Category:Scotland ... via Category:George W. Bush and Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant activities.
My use of CatCycle suggests that this sort of problem is widespread. How can we fix it? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it was when a category took its name from the article? An IP keeps adding Category:World Snooker Championships to List of world snooker champions (see [3]). I believe that it is redundant per WP:SUBCAT because the article already belongs to Category:World snooker champions which in turns is a child of Category:World Snooker Championships. The IP contends that the category should be present per WP:EPON. I disagree, because surely an eponymous category for this article would be Category:World snooker Champions, as opposed to Category:World Snooker Championships. The latter would seem to be eponymous for World Snooker Championship. Can someone advise on this i.e. should the parent category be considered "eponymous" in this case and should the article be added to the category even though it is in the sub-category? Betty Logan ( talk) 11:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@ P64: Is it ok if I copy your reply over to the Snooker Project talk page, given that it affects other areas of our categorization? Betty Logan ( talk) 23:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a category tree for officers of the
Indian Air Force where
Category:Indian Air Force officers is the parent category,
Category:Indian Air Force air marshals is a subcategory and
Category:Chiefs of Air Staff (India) is a further subcategory of the second. There is currently a mixture in the categorization where some biographies are listed in two or even all three categories, while others are listed in one only. This issue came to my attention when I noticed
Vinodtiwari2608 add the parent officer category to two articles in the air marshals subcategory.
I think that in this case the general rule described at
WP:SUBCAT should apply, namely that the articles "...should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." I do not see any reason for the subcategories to be treated as non-diffusing (as described at
WP:DUPCAT). I will allow Vinodtiwari2608 to explain their reasons for thinking that the subcategories should overlap.
On a related point, because since 1966 the Chief of Air Staff has held a separate rank of Air Chief Marshall, as described
here, I think that
Category:Indian Air Force air marshals, a new
Category:Indian Air Force air chief marshals and
Category:Chiefs of Air Staff (India) should all be separate categories under the parent category. Chiefs of Air Staff can be non-diffused into either air marshall or air chief marshall depending on whether they were pre- or post-1966. But all of these should be diffused from the parent "officers" category.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk) 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure whether this is the right platform to propose this, please let me know if not.
The risk of deleting empty categories (per C1) is that they were merely emptied in order to bypass CfD, there aren't any checks on this that I know of. Proposal is postponing the actual deletion of an empty category to 14 days after tagging it as empty, instead of 4 days after tagging, so that editors of articles will have more time to revert a category removal from their article in case the deletion is controversial.
On the side I would also propose more clearly splitting the page Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion in three sections, one part for CfD explanation (current section 2 and 3 combined), one for C1 explanation (current 4.1.1 and 5 combined) and a third separate part for listing speedy renaming/merging (remainder of current section 4). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
db-catempty}}
for four days during which time no pages have been added to the category. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Look at the messy list of categories at the end of Go_(game) and Talk:Go_(game). It would look much better if it were presented in columns, don't you agree? — Tentacles Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles 18:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I see 1 line of categories at the end of Go_(game), but then there are 7 lines of hidden categories. Now, I see 8 lines of categories (not counting the 1 line of hidden categories) at the end of Talk:Go_(game). — Tentacles Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles 18:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
display:
property, to be placed in
Special:MyPage/common.css. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
div#catlinks {
-moz-column-count: 3;
-webkit-column-count: 3;
column-count: 3;
}
div#catlinks li::before {
content: normal;
}
div#catlinks li {
display: list-item;
}
3
to another positive non-zero integer value. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)If we can get some categories-experts to chime in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_abuse_of_categorization_by_IP that would be great. Trying to get a bearing on the extent of the problem and if it justifies a temporary block. Thanks. -- œ ™ 08:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
We have something of a mess with the following: Category:Filipino people of Spanish descent, Category:Spanish Filipino, Category:Spanish Filipinos, Category:Spanish Philippines. I can't work out what the intention is - I have observed that:
They could do with a thorough sortout. Notifying people who have edited those pages recently: Arius1988 ( talk · contribs), General Ization ( talk · contribs), Josephsolis ( talk · contribs), PatTag2659 ( talk · contribs). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why Birth year and living people categories have been placed at the top of category lists rather than in normal alphabetical position.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
13:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Category:Wikipedia categories named after awards, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion as a trial balloon to see if there is support for deleting other "Wikipedia categories named after..." categories. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_30#Category:Wikipedia_categories_named_after_awards in its entirety is worth a read. Pinging the participants of that discussion @ RevelationDirect, Good Olfactory, Marcocapelle, DexDor, Oculi, and Johnpacklambert:, but it's worth a read from others as well. I'm holding off on actually deleting the category for a day or two to allow editors to voice disagreement with my close if they wish to. I declined to interpret how this particular deletion affects the "Wikipedia categories named after ..." categories at large, but I don't think it should encourage a mass-nomination of all such categories. It depends a lot on what plausible parent categories exist, based on how this discussion went. ~ Rob Talk 17:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, so i should be adding this project to category talkpages? Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Due to the fact that in closing CFDs I have lately come across multiple complaints about the editing patterns of User:Stefanomione, I have re-opened his case at the Administrator's Noticeboard. The link is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_8#Roman_Empire_establishments_.281st_century_and_earlier.29:
Copied until here
User:Meclee is against having Category:Philosophy of economics within the tree of Category:Economics. Per this discussion he suggests instead to have it as a parent of Category:Economics. Personally I think it is a weird way of categorizing, as Philosophy of Economics clearly is a sub-discipline of Economics. What do other editors think of this? Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The naming of this category is confusing. It should be renamed and its scope clarified.
I see five possibilities for its scope and name.
1: "State terrorism" (controversial for example the Iraq war could be label as State terrorism. As could the dropping of the atomic bomb, many events in WW2, the destruction of Carthage etc. By its nature a POV tag.)
2: It is the same as Category:State-sponsored terrorism and should be deleted.
3: It is the same as Category:Terrorism by country and should be deleted.
4: "Terrorism committed by a state" same as option 1 POV problems.
5: "State terrorism theory" A more limited category. Jonney2000 ( talk) 05:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for editors to request instead of requesting the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors interested in categorizing are invited to comment at Category talk:Antisemitism#Racism and Discrimination. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors interested in categories are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Categories are not articles. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I seem to remember someone citing this months ago but can't remember what it was called. It was a policy where if you included a category for the article, the subject of the category had to be mentioned on the page, ideally with a supporting reference.
The closest I could find was WP:CATDEF but I thought there was something more specific than that to do with sourcing. Ranze ( talk) 16:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions to be moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Closing instructions. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I glanced at Category:Truck drivers via the awfully blatant WP:NOTMEMORIAL/ WP:NOTNEWS violation that is Darrell Ward in its present state. Anyway, in this category page, the W's are sorting in between R and S. I didn't dig any deeper to see if there was a reason for this or if it's some sort of software screwup, but I felt that it may warrant mention. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Showing_related_articles.2C_especially_on_Mobile Jytdog ( talk) 22:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Category:Animal rights advocates properly specifies that it should be applied only to persons for whom it is a defining characteristic, and not to celebrities who just happen to be supporters. However, I've been noticing that editors have been adding the category rather indiscriminately to celebrity pages. It might be a good idea to go through the category and do some cleanup. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion involving sports categories, their parent groups, and templates to populate both sets at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Continents_from_countries. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 02:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I have created, and requested template changes to populate, two new tracking categories. Like Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability, these categories combine all the entries from corresponding month-by-month tracking categories in one category. One use for this is to allow the use of Special:RandomInCategory across all tracked months at once, though there are certainly other uses. The new categories are:
— swpb T 13:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
While finishing up a few TFD mergers I came across some tracking categories used by the templates I was working on. I noticed that while both categories are tracking categories, they are neither named similarly nor listed under a "unknown parameter" supercat. The cats in question are Category:Articles with unknown parameter in Infobox rail line and Category:Pages using infobox tennis tournament with unsupported parameters. I created the IB tennis cat, modeling it after the {{ infobox company}} tracking cat, but I have two questions.
If #1 isn't possible/feasible, then I guess I won't worry about it, but the thought of getting #2 going is rather tempting. Primefac ( talk) 04:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Please create. Pe-ga-sos ( talk) 14:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I'm interested in learning to what extent, if any, the general rules on parent/child categorization are applied to articles on countries. For example, is the article on Mongolia really supposed to be categorized as a country in Northeast Asia AND as a country in East Asia AND as a country in Asia?
I will greatly appreciate any guidance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's better to maintain a categorization of the countries in both the parent category and the sub category for reasons of an overall view. For example, the Category:East African countries shows the countries belonging to this region, the Category:Countries in Africa shows the countries of entire Africa. I guess this will be very convenient to the users. Wwikix ( talk) 10:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have seen nothing from this editor as to any clear understanding of what categorization is about, the guidelines or policies - and simply the mantra of overall view and convenient to the users - which raises concerns as to whether there is a clear understanding of how wikipedia works... JarrahTree 10:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the structure:
In these circumstances it is reasonable to categorize the North African countries both in the Category:Countries in Africa and in the Category:North African countries. Wwikix ( talk) 13:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Wwikix: it might help if you were to frame you suggestions by reference to the existing guidelines under WP:CAT. For example, one or more of the following:
Other editors might not agree with you, but at least it would be clear that you understood the existing guidelines, and we would have some common ground to base the discussion on. Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
We now have a legacy of a system of category creation and usage that has been left us by the blocked user. Is there anyone who watches this page, willing and able to distinguish between the ok edits by the blocked user. That is - those edits that were in process of creating category overlap, or multiple cat/subcat confusion? It would be good to clarify where the experienced category editors might be able to help on this.
At the ANI page where I lodged my concern I used as an example:
The questions that arise from that happy little collection could take up a big space, the 'by country' tree sitting with the continent, and the cat/subcat combination(s), as well as other issues, but I use it here simply as an illustration/example that I believe we have to grapple with in the reviewing the set of edits.
It is clear there were more watchers than involved, and at this point if someone wants to go in - I think it would be a very good handle if there was a systematic appraisal or breakdown of the edits:
I do not think there should be blanket reverting unless a good case can be made to do so. JarrahTree 00:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there an alternate name to the category for what in the US is referred to as a Category:Vietnam veteran? It was surprising to me that this category (or the redirect to the appropriate category) does not exist. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I came across RockNRollWiki ( talk · contribs) who is removing a ton of cats from articles (cats that look valid to me), plus blanking and creating a bunch of categories. Given the long string of cats they've created that have been deleted, and my lack of familiarity with the category system, I thought I would bring it to your attention. Cheers, Primefac ( talk) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Just was wondering if it's acceptable or even necessary to add content and citations to category pages like is done for this category. WP:CAT#Creating category pages suggests that it's not, but not sure what should be done is such a case. Just delete the text? Move it to the talk page? Something else? It seems like somebody might have mistaken the page for an article based upon this edit sum. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI - I have made a proposal for an alphabetical sort function to be added to the category section of articles as part of the m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. SFB 00:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I don't normally ask for help but I really need some for a category-related issue. I've been having a bit of a slow-but-now-speeding-up edit war with a user who is intent on categorizing certain articles about coats of arms with a "key sort" that looks like this: for the article " Coat of arms of FOO", he would like it to be categorized like this
[[Category:FOO| ]]
See, for example, his recent edit on Coat of arms of Whitehorse, Yukon.
In other words, he wants to categorize coats of arms articles as "key articles". The guideline #8 of WP:SORTKEY states: "Use a space as the sort key for a key article for the category."
Shortly after I pointed this guideline out to the user, suggesting that this sorting was inappropriate, he changed the definition of "key article" in the Wikipedia:Glossary (!) to state that a heraldic coat of arms in an example of a key article (which is clearly is not, in my opinion). There was no proposal of this edit to the definition made beforehand or contemporaneous with the edit, so I have been repeatedly removing it while trying to have it discussed on the Glossary talk page, but only this user is participating in that discussion, and he has repeatedly reverted my removals of it.
I thought about an RFC, but my patience on the issue is all but spent and this is the most I can muster.
Could some users who are familiar with categories please take a look at the discussion here and weigh in?
Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that Category:Murdered activists was deleted in 2007, and I understand it was deleted because the murdered activists actually belong to Category:Murdered politicians. Also because there is a category named Category:Assassinated activists.
I think that's wrong for two reasons:
I've already found four murdered historians and I'm not sure what category to create: Category:Murdered scholars or Category:Murdered academics or maybe Category:Murdered scholars and academics (as a sub-category of Category:Scholars and academics)? These are the persons: John Holmes Jenkins, Adrian Greenwood, David Rattray, Nicolae Iorga. — Ark25 ( talk) 13:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Country-specific WP:NAMESORT cases (Thailand). It's about how Thailand-specific category sorting should apply for biographical articles. Please share your thoughts if you're interested. Thanks. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
A user has recently populated the country subcats under Category:Television programs by country and Category:Television series by country. However, these two by-country categories are hopelessly overlapping, and the parents Category:Television programs and Category:Television series are problematic as well. Merging is probably in order, but given the large number of involved categories, I'd like to hear some more opinions first. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Political science by country is currently categorised under Category:Science and technology by country, but this is clearly incorrect. "Science and technology" in this sense isn't meant to include social sciences in general. Would Category:Academia by country be an appropriate category, or should Category:Social sciences by country be created? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be very helpful if people could contribute to the discussions at Categories for discussion about joke categorisation on user pages. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have recently noticed in my trawling through the categories that there are a few red categories which don't seem to actually exist - like Category:Winter Olympic competitors by sport and year. It's empty. So, I wondered if anyone could explain what is going on. They are mostly marked "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted". If it has been deleted, how does it exist? Rathfelder ( talk) 12:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
If anyone's got some time over Christmas, Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links and Wikipedia:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories ( Quarry for latest version) can always do with some attention. I've cleaned out the former at times in the past, I've been grinding down the latter from ~7000 to 1900 or so with some help from User:Rathfelder and others, but won't get it done by year-end as I'd hoped. Creating red-linked categories isn't my idea of fun, I've plenty of better things to be getting on with, but building the category network feels important for bots and Hotcat alike. Can I gently suggest that when people add a red-link category they actually create the cat rather than assuming that the category fairies will look after it? The date category folks seem to be the worst for that, about 80% of that first report are dates and I cleaned out all the dates from the second report a few weeks ago and it's now back up in the hundreds. Le Deluge ( talk) 11:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion by another editor. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Category see also § Gibberish needs fixing about the "sentence"
|project=
: Any valid interwiki or interproject prefix from de:, fr:, es: access to other language Wikipedias to cross-sister wiki's using sister projects abbreviations such as B:, Q:, S:, v: etc., and, where applicable, both interlingual and cross-project links can be rendered as follows:-- Thnidu ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal, for Template:State establishment category, to remove "Category:YYYY in international relations". A state (dis)establishment generally has little do with international relations. Besides hundreds of international relations categories only contain state (dis)establishment child categories, which makes these categories quite redundant, since the content is already in "Category:YYYY in politics" as well. (Question: is this a right platform for a discussion about this proposal?) Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
So far I've never encountered a category like this: Category:Russian history articles needing expert attention. It doesn't have a "needing expert attention" parent. Shall we just leave it alone or should we discuss it at CfD? Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I just left a question on Category talk:People of Bosniak descent, can anyone take a look? Thanks. — Ark25 ( talk) 20:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You have Category:Historical plays. This would mean, I assume, plays about actual events. But subcats for that are like Category:Plays set in the Middle Ages. Set in does not mean it's about real events, at all. This matters IMO.
You end up with Jekyll & Hyde (musical) in Category:Plays set in the 19th century which is in Category:Plays by century of setting which is in Category:Plays by period of setting which is in Category:Historical plays. But Jekyll & Hyde are not historical figures.
It's late and I'm not a category maven, so untangling all this looks really hard to me. It's fine to have categories "Plays set in the X century", but the subcats of Category:Historical plays ought to be categories like "Historical plays about the X century", which is a different thing, although (with very rare exceptions) they would intersect... "Historical plays about the X century" being a subcat of "plays set in the X century" as well as of "Historical plays by century".
Right? I'm afraid if I tried to fix this I'd make a dog's breakfast of it... maybe some category maven here can figure this out? Herostratus ( talk) 07:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Editors interested in categorization are invited to comment at Talk:Strasserism#Category:Nazism, where there is a disagreement about inclusion of articles in both parent and child categories. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Similarly at Talk:White pride#Category:White supremacy. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The same editor who thinks that WP:SUBCAT ought not apply to White Pride apparently also thinks that WP:SUBCAT is " nonsense" when applied to Great White Fleet in Albany, Western Australia in 1908.
Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Great White Fleet in Albany, Western Australia in 1908#Category:Albany, Western Australia. (I use the term "discussion" loosely here, because the editors who don't like SUBCAT haven't yet indicated why). Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've found this category loop: Category:English colonization of the Americas → Category:History of the Thirteen Colonies → Category:Colonization of the Americas → Category:English colonization of the Americas but I'm not sure at which point to break it. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 14:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I see that blocked IP
5.69.225.209 has made several hundred edits over the last few days, many of which are adding and deleting categories. Some of these edits are positive, some negative and others show signs of good faith but need tidying. Many edits follow a pattern of replacing Category: English (type of person)
by the less precise Category: British (type of person)
. I think the changes could benefit from a review by someone familiar with WP categorisation, especially of British people. I'm willing to help out but I'm no category expert and there are quite a few articles affected, so it may need to be a team effort. Any advice please?
Certes (
talk) 19:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Reggie.clever ( talk · contribs) has created two categories, Category:Big House Publishing Artists and Category:Big House Companies, which are probably related - but has put them inside themselves, with no true parent categories. What would be suitable parents for these?
Since (what appears to be) a related article, Big House Publishing, has been created and deleted several times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big House Publishing), maybe these categories should be deleted too. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I was doing a bit of non-free image clean up when I noticed that the album cover art, etc. for stuff by Joe Satriani is categorized into Category:Album covers. I know that artists/bands often have sub-categories specific to them, so I created Category:Joe Satriani album covers, but I'm not sure if I did it correctly. Also, it seems as there was a Category:Joe Satriani which was CSD way back in 2007, but not sure if that means a category for the cover art shouldn't be created at all. Anyway, any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Editors interested in categorization are invited to comment at Talk:List of types of killing#Categories: Murder, Homicide as to whether List of types of killing should or should not be listed in the specific categories Category:Murder, Category:Suicide. I suggest that they ought not be, because the categories are far more specific than that article, but Hmains disagrees. Mitch Ames ( talk) 00:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a question about inclusion of Category:Antisemitism in Haavara Agreement. Additional opinions at Talk:Haavara Agreement#Antisemitism Category would be helpful. VQuakr ( talk) 07:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to post this. I'm seeking additional opinions regarding a dispute with another user over the proper categorization of an article, and the correct application (or not) of defining characteristics. If you can help, please weigh in at Talk:Full communion#Categorisation. Thank you in advance, Mathglot ( talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are tons of categories relating to fictional characters ethnic background and some ethno-religious categories such as Category:Fictional Jews but the ones only for a characters religion seem to be non-existent. Category:Islam in fiction exists and categories for real life people such as Category:Muslims and Category:Former Muslims exists as well. Why have categories like Category:Fictional Muslims or Category:Fictional Christians been deleted? I don't mean to be argumentative I'm just kind of curious. ★Trekker ( talk) 22:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to see a category for meeting formats. I don't have much experience in categorization, so I thought I would propose it here first. I was prompted by the list I stumbled upon at Unconference#Facilitation styles. I considered Category:Meeting facilitation, but some relevant formats, such as World Café, don't involve a facilitator in the same way as others. How about Category:Meeting formats? Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 22:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Zingvin keeps adding history categories to finance articles, see e.g. the edit history of Stock market since 23 February and see the current content of Category:Economic history of the Netherlands. I've told them on their talk page not to do this, but they don't react and just keep going on. What is the best action to proceed? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi people. I have just proposed this category creation for stub categories (please refer to that thread in order to avoid reduplications). Best regards, -- Fadesga ( talk) 11:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The template {{ Main category}} is used on both category pages and article pages. In the former, it just duplicates the categorization at the bottom of the page (see, for example, Category:Wikipedia backlog). In the latter, it is generally placed in the body of the article (see, for example, Atlantic Ocean#History), which is contrary to the editing guidelines for categorization: "By convention, category declarations are placed at the end of the wikitext". Can anyone think of a reason why this template should not be deleted? RockMagnetist( talk) 16:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmains and I have an ongoing disagreement about categorisation, and I would appreciate other editors' input on the matter. The essence of the disagreement is that I have been removing articles (and categories) from parent and grandparent (etc) categories where the removed article has been duplicated in both a child and parent category. This removal is per WP:SUBCAT, which says, clearly and unambiguously (with my added emphasis here):
... 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) of that category ...
In these cases the categories are not marked as {{ Non-diffusing subcategory}} or {{ All included}}. Hmains disagrees with these edits, and has been reverting them. Basroch refugee camp is a recent example. I removed it from Category:European migrant crisis because that category is a parent of Category:Calais migrant crisis (1999–present), which the article is in directly. Hmains reverted the edit. We have discussed the matter on my talk page [5] [6] [7] but we seem no closer to resolving the disagreement. In some cases Hmains has added {{ All included}} when reverting my edits (see [8]), but has suggested that might not be the case in future [9] [10].
Personally I do not think the duplication in child and parent categories is necessary in most cases - as SUBCAT says, they should be exceptions, not the norm - so I don't intend to add the {{ Non-diffusing subcategory}} or {{ All included}} every time I find duplications. However if an editor (Hmains or other) marks a category with the template then I won't intentionally remove the duplication. It appears though that Hmains is not inclined to add the templates either - only to revert my edits.
I'd like to hear the opinions of other editors, to help resolve this ongoing dispute. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree with you....— Thank you.
the imperfectness of the system shouldn't stop us from making the right decision in any individual case— I agree that WP:IAR exists, but exceptions should be " rare" and better justified. (For the purpose of this disucssion, an appropriate template on the category page would be "better justified".)
who am I to decide whether a category should be considered diffusing or non-diffusing— if you don't know whether a particular category should be an exception to the general rule of SUBCAT, then perhaps you should just to follow the general rule of SUBCAT - and not duplicate the categorization.
I am perfectly fine ... with categories being both, i.e. partially diffusing and partially non-diffusing ...— I don't think that "I don't care about the guideline" is a very compelling argument.
it does not say ... that the lack of such a template is in itself proof that a category is diffusing
"In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. ... 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) of that category"
Non-diffusing subcategories should be identified with a template on the category page:
only option 2 is a true description of the situation, but ... it is hard for the individual editor, ... to make that determination— Those editors who feel that a category should be non-diffusing can easily resolve the problem by putting the appropriate template on the relevant categories, instead of complaining about the editors who pay some attention to the guidelines.
I think we should first try and see if we can elucidate the concept of a diffusing category a bit better, perhaps with several examples.– The concept is already well defined in WP:CAT and I have repeatedly quoted the relevant sections of it. We can discuss some guidelines about how to decide whether a particular category should be non-diffusing or all-included - but in the meantime we have a perfectly good and acceptable method of indicating that intent, by simply applying the appropriate template. Surely it's not so hard to just use that method.
Isn't there a template allowing the creator of an empty category to speedy-delete it? And if so, why has 15 minutes of searching failed to find reference to it? Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 14:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-author}}
and {{
db-catempty}}
. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 20:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Wikipedia category to be moved to Template:Maintenance category. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 11:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just begun delving into the issue of categories. Consequently, I have some generic questions and observations. As a Milhist coordinator, my interest is in how categories can help with curation of the project by identifying categories directly linked to the project and those peripheral to the project, both in the main space and not in the main space.
I have been browsing the category tree. [11] Even the concise view is very large and causing me issues. I noticed at Category:1792 establishments that Category:Kentucky is the first sub category. The tree for Kentucky then fills a page. On the page for Category:Kentucky, I see Category:States of the United States. The category "States of the United States", is the "key" category to which Kentucky belongs.
My observation would be that the size of the category tree could be greatly reduced by displaying the full detail of the tree for Kentucky only at the point in the tree of its "key" category (ie, where it is preceed by its key category). Elsewhere in the tree where Kentucky appears, a flag or tag could be added to indicate that there is much more detail. There is the possibility of an interactive feature - ie (±). The interactive feature could expand or collapse the detail for Kentucky at that point on the tree page.
At places where Category:Kentucky appears, the key category to which it belongs can also be shown eg { Category:States of the United States}. The curly brackets are used to indicate that it is the key category. Of course, this would be redundant at the point in the tree where it is preceded by its key category. This would be at the "main path". An interactive feature might navigate to where Kentucky appears in its "main path" - ie (→).
A "main path" follows a tree of "key categories". For Kentucky, this would be: Category:Countries, Category:Countries by continent, Category:Countries in North America and finally Category:States of the United States. It is at this point in the category tree that the full tree for Category:Kentucky would be displayed with all of its branches. You will appreciate that I have used Kentucky as an example to illustrate a principle.
I see a lot of different categories of stubs. Consequently, I see a lot of structure duplicated for stubs (and some other things). However, the path structure does not necessarily mirror the "main" structure. It should (allowing for the absence of branches in stubs that are unpopulated and therefore redundant). I would have thought that "stubs" should be a primary category yet there are many categories of stubs that are primary categories themself - Category:History stubs. I cold suggest a functionality that might obviate such duplication. Instead of a discrete category of Category:Armenian history stubs, instead, it would appear as [[Armenian history|stub]] or {{stub category|[[Armenian history stubs]]}}. The specific syntax is immaterial, it is the effect or concept that is pertinent. The functionality creates a virtual tree. As such, it reduces the "actual" amount of data that must be managed and processed. The functionality used for stubs could then be applied to other Wiki internal categories which also mirror the "main" category tree.
Under Category:Buildings and structures by type, I noticed fences, gates, gatehouses and walls that (IMO) all fall to a sub category of barriers? At what number of subcategories within a category is it appropriate to diffuse and reduce the number. I also noted: forts, fortifications, castles, barracks, Military buildings and structures, Military installations and camps (in which some subcategories are military). Is there an easy process to group and diffuse categories to a sub category - [[Category:Military Buildings and structures by type]]?
I saw another group of categories - it contained a number of different categories of "people" as well as quite a lot of other categories. Within this were "people by occupation" and "sports people", each with a number of subcategories. Technically, not everybody who plays a sport is a sportsperson by occupation. However, the title "people by occupation" could be re-titled "people by occupation or field of endeavour". Alternatively, the category page could "define" what falls within the category, such that the category "occupation" is defined as "an occupation or field of endeavour". Is this how things are intended to work? It would make sense if the category somehow defined its scope and that this was made explict in guides about how categories work. Just a thought.
I am seeing opportunities to categorise in a lot of places through the tree based on broad categories: who, what, when, where and why. These could be applied at the highest level in the first instance. I can also see that they could be applied to branches at any level. So, for the category, Kentucky the subcategories could be broadly categorised as: people, places (localities building geographical features), things from Kentucky (animals or objects), a Kentucky timeline and history, and other things that are more abstract. I would describe these as "key groupings". Not every subcategory following from a particular branch will fall to a "key grouping" but it provides a "conceptual basis" for structuring the category tree.
Furthermore, at any particular branch, "key subgrouping sets" may become apparent which have some commonality for other similar branches in the tree. Applying such a concept would result in a "conceptually consistent" structure. Sets of key groupings. So, I can see that all countries would have a similar subcategory structure based on "key subgrouping sets". In effect, "key subgrouping country" would be a boilerplate for all countries. Such a concept does not restrict the addition of additional subcategories to the set for a particular country. It does not impose a "one size fits all" - rather, it should acknowledge commonality to the extent that there is commonality while also, embracing diversity. "Key subgroupings" would share a common naming convention - eg "people from country XYZ". Of course, the names used in the stem of key subgrouping sets would need to be agreed.
Another key grouping I can identify are those things that relate to Wikipedia as a domain - stubs, hidden categories (as a category) and anything else relating to Wikipedia as a construct as opposed to the collection of encyclopedic articles in the main space.
Another matter would relate to the catergory of occupations and the category of persons from from Country XYZ by occupation. The occupations in the second set should (by definition) be a subset of the first category. Also, "occupations by country" in the first set should exactly equal the second set. The second set should mirror the first set.
The first set may have the occupation, head of state populated by: president, governor, monach etc. However, country XYZ only has presidents. The category of heads of state is redundant in this case. In the second set, heads of state is an implied and omitted category. Because it is omitted, the two sets don't have the same structure. Consequently, they cannot be directly compared. To overcome this, I suggest "transparent category levels" in the second set. This is not to be confused with "hidden categories". By this, I mean that the tree structure in the first set is maintained in the second set but levels of category with only one referent (no branching) are "transparent" (not normally seen) and filtered from the normal tree structure report. The advantage is that it maintains a direct correspondence between the two sets and allows a direct comparison. A new occupation category added to the second set should also appear in the first set. Maintaining the structures transparently allows a direct comparison to reveal such and addition. Also, when attempting to add a new occupation category to the second set, existing occupations in the first set can be revealed. This could facilitate identifying whether this "new category" already exists in the first set (even if it isn't a perfect match.
At present, WP lacks the ability to "browse" by category from the top down. A more defined structure would facilitate this. I can see this being analogous to Windows file explorer. The directory/category structure can be explored as one option or a search made across the main space. An additional feature would be to search by word within a category. Yes, this is already available in Wiki search but not with the degree of ease comparable with Windows file explorer.
Categories are under-exploited.
Just some thoughts, ideas and observations. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
After closing the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 10, I was thinking that it may be helpful to reconsider how templates such as {{ EstcatCountryCentury}} (e.g. at Category:5th-century establishments in India) and {{ EstcatCountry1stMillennium}} are used. The presence of so many redlinks is just an invitation to recreate these categories for even just one article. I am not sure what the solution is, or even if there is a problem to solve, but thought I would at least mention it. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree really good work here. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
An RFC has been opened about categorization of events by past or current country, see the link here. Feel free to join the discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the process for changing the title of a category? I am thinking about this category in particular Category:Royal_Navy_officers_who_were_court-martialed which, as it is about British Royal Navy officers, should more appropriately use the British English spelling of court-martialled.-- Ykraps ( talk) 14:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Conflict with Category:Kvng RTH -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"is there a specific policy that says editors are not allowed to create and maintain hidden categories for the purpose of improving workflow?"which, in this context, refers to categories created by an editor for their own personal workflow. @ Kvng: to notify of this post - requesting help from the categories enthusiasts. Pam D 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There seem to be many categories of particular universities' faculty and notable people. But the definition for inclusion is not stated on the category page. Can it be? Should a university faculty category include both current and former faculty? Bo99 ( talk) 16:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi-I notice that categories about families that the given name is used instead of going alphabetical by surname. The reason given is that various individuals in these families have the same first name. I always thought the names should be listed alphabetically according to the surname. Clarification is needed about this? Is there something I need to know? Thank you- RFD ( talk) 14:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Category:William Shakespeare is in Category:17th-century writers. Although the Bard himself undoubtedly belongs in that category, many other subjects in Category:William Shakespeare (such as the Thane of Cawdor and the asteroid 2985 Shakespeare) do not. This causes problems: for example, Henry Green (politician, died 1399) comes up in my search for Category:16th-century English people. Should we unlink this category from its parent categories, or have I missed something? Certes ( talk) 12:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This type of categorisation seems to be widespread. Category:Charles Dickens is in Category:Victorian novelists, even though Lant Street and The Daily News (UK) shouldn't be. Someone doesn't understand categorisation, and it may be me. Or perhaps no one cares any more now that Wikidata is emerging. I'll leave things alone. Certes ( talk) 11:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sufficiently familiar with categorisation to sort this out this tangle. The Bloomsbury Group was an informal group of people, some painters, some writers, some had other (or no particular) occupation. Barbara Hiles was a painter but her article is categorised in Category:Bloomsbury Group which (ultimately) is a subcat of Category:English artists and so Mitch Ames has removed the latter category from the article. I know this is technically correct but is seems to me it leaves the categorisation here in an unsatisfactory state because no category is now defining her as a painter rather than various other occupations. Perhaps her article should be removed from Category:Bloomsbury Group – she is not included in the Bloomsbury Group article, probably deliberately, and her article only says she was "associated with members of the Bloomsbury Group". However, I feel, subjectively, Bloomsbury is defining for her. Or is it legitimate to include her in a subcat of Category:English artists, say Category:English women painters? An even more difficult situation is for, say, Virginia Woolf. She is canonically "Bloomsbury Group" but should her article therefore be removed from several writers categories? Finally, and going beyond my level of competence, should Category:Bloomsbury Group be non-diffusing? Thincat ( talk) 12:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
making category A a member of category B can mean one of two things. Sometimes it means that every member of A is a member of B; sometimes it doesn't.— It should mean that (most) members of A are members of B. WP:SUBCAT says quite explicitly (with my insertions of A, B for example): "When making one category [A] a subcategory of another [B], ensure that the members of the subcategory [A] really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent [B] also." Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I have come across two categories, Category:African-American sportsmen and Category:White Americans, which were rather arbitrarily placed on a few articles of individual people while they could theoretically include thousands. I have no idea whether they should continue to exist, be rapidly expanded, be redefined to non-person articles, just left with an arbitrary selection of articles, or whatever else is appropriate, so I would like to bring this to the attention of more category-savvy Wikipedians. 9 3 21:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone determine how Category:2018 NPSL season has been added to this article as well as User:Nick40ghs/2018 Virginia Beach City FC season. I can't find the syntax in their respective edit windows. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 06:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Categorization for some ongoing discussion. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 12:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking for a category to put Template:List of publications intro and Template:SI unit lowercase in. I imagine something similar to Category:Documentation shared content templates but for mainspace. Does such a category exist? I know it there are concerns about these kinds of templates in WP:Template namespace#Guidelines, but all the more reason to group them together so we can scrutinize them appropriately. Any ideas? Daask ( talk) 22:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:WikiProject Category sorting to be moved to WP:WikiProject Categories/taskforce/category sorting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 04:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Further input is requested at Category talk:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants#Sorting -- wooden superman 09:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Project members may be interested in this discussion re: whether or not we should categorize all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:38, 15 May 2018 (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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Hey guys, I just went to go and look for a category for male film directors, but saw that we didn't have any. I noticed that we did have a category for women film directors ( Category:American women film directors), but that male directors go in just the general category. Given the amount of flack we got over not having a category for male novelists, I think that it'd be a good idea to do this with directors as well before someone catches on and we get more hell from the media. I haven't the foggiest how to get this started other than posting here, though.
I'm reposting this here since I'd put this in another forum, but I do think that this would be a good thing to do - there's already precedent. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Every category in Main topic classifications that I have examined so far has several supercats. That seems odd for something that is supposed to be at the top of the article tree. I could see maybe one additional supercat leading up to Fundamental categories, but not several that are often way down the tree. Some categorizations are circular. For example, Knowledge -> Information -> Knowledge; both of these categories are fundamental. Knowledge has 10 supercats, so it's not surprising to find a loop. The categories in Fundamental categories are not quite as bad, but there is Concepts -> Thought -> Concepts. Perhaps they should all be trimmed so there is only one route to each of the top categories? RockMagnetist( talk) 23:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is another example where a fundamental category is found 8 levels down its own tree: Concepts -> Cognition -> Consciousness -> Mind -> Concepts in metaphysics -> Philosophical concepts -> Concepts by field -> Concepts. RockMagnetist( talk) 23:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to show that these loops are everywhere I look, I'll do two more: Life -> Biology -> Life sciences -> Life. Also, Life -> Life sciences -> Natural sciences -> Nature -> Universe (so Universe contains another main topic and a fundamental topic). RockMagnetist( talk) 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Following up on the "Study of X" theme, Chronology is a curious choice for a main topic. Time would be better, although turn categories such as Dimension and Physical quantities. Still, it's so basic that it might be a good choice. Thoughts? RockMagnetist( talk) 22:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am seeing a need for a category that refers to sets/groups/collections in the broad sense of a bunch of things. See, for example, my attempts to categorize Theories, where Category:Conceptual systems was the best I could come up with but didn't seem quite right. There are probably many more examples, but it's late and I can't think of them. RockMagnetist( talk) 06:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday I posted WT:RE#Redirects in article categories, workaround, which is relevant here. Now I post this cross-reference at WT:CAT-R too. -- P64 ( talk) 17:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
template:Images has been proposed for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_12#Template:Images -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 03:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a question at: Wikipedia_talk:Defining#Li Ka-shing. I would appreciate your views. Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I recently created Category:NAIA football navigational boxes, but I don't see it in either of its two parent categories, Category:American college football navigational boxes and Category:NAIA football. Have others had this sort of issue? Any idea what's going on? Thanks, Jweiss11 ( talk) 05:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A user has placed a request for renaming all of the video game console generations pages (eg, History of video game consoles (third generation) → Third generation of video game consoles).
These pages are used to categorize eras in video gaming history not only on Wikipedia but due to what some believe is a documentable case of citogenesis, has probably helped form a standard naming convention outside of Wikipedia as well. So these pages have some level of influence and visibility beyond this site.
The reason I'm here is that the current structure of the category names is likely flawed and not up to Wikipedia standard, but historically this often becomes a contentious change debating semantics (the last time this came up it sure did) and I believe that if it's going to be changed it should be changed to a Wikipedia standard form. I just want this current vote to have high enough visibility to get a clear consensus so that we're not back here in a couple of years when the next new crop of editors decides they have a better way to phrase the category titles.
So I'm bringing this debate to a greater audience so we can hear your thoughts and help us video game editors in the process. Thanks for your attention and I hope to see your thoughts on this vote. BcRIPster ( talk) 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorization does not seem to have instructions on how to propose a new category, for discussion or for a more experienced editor to simply create. I suggest that said article should be modified to mention it.
I have noticed many disambiguation articles with multiple entries that are chemicals, usually enzymes, for example, HPSE. There is a Category:Science disambiguation pages, which seems awfully broad for this and contains only 4 articles, one of which is an enzyme disambiguation page, DHQD. I would like to propose a subcategory of Category:Science disambiguation pages: Category:Chemical disambiguation pages with its sub Category:Enzyme disambiguation pages, but I want a discussion first. If this is to be done, I think templates should be made, or existing templates modified, e.g. {{Disambiguation|chem}} and {{Disambiguation|enzyme}}.
Also note that DHQD has been set up as a member of Category:Enzyme set index pages. This is a possible path for HPSE and many other pages, but I am not sure if it is the best path. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 17:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I notice that a user has recently created a separate category tree for Ethnic Greek people. This user (@ Johnpacklambert:) is now blocked indefinitely, maybe for other purposes although it seems relative to BLP categorization. My first reaction would tend against the creation such a category tree, however I'd like to listen here what the opinions are.
I understand that "ethnic" categories are sometimes useful, and I understand the difference between ethnic Greek and Greek (although these terms may each cover very different concepts at different times in history) but I think that:
For these reasons, I think that this new category tree does shows more problems than advantages, and I would tend towards its deletion. However, again, I'd like to listen here what the opinions are. (Also notified Project Greece.) Place Clichy ( talk) 16:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Johnpacklambert: I was thinking of nominating this new hierarchy for merger or deletion, but most of the sub-categories have now been emptied. Are you abandoning it? – Fayenatic L ondon 19:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Johnpacklambert: Why do you consider that the Greek people category is restricted to the citizens of the current state of Greece? This seems like a personal interpretation to me, and not the way Wikipedia categories work. By strictly applying what you suggets, this would mean that there were no Greek people prior to 1821, or that one of the greatest Greeks of all time, Eleftherios Venizelos, was not himself Greek as he was a Cretan at a time when Crete was still Ottoman. As discussed above, the will to "stop people putting non-Greek nationals in Greek categories" is not worth the creation of a parallel category tree that can never be correctly populated, among other problems. May I have the friendly suggestion to use other categories such as Ancient Greeks, Byzantine people, Greek Cypriot people, People of Greek descent etc. for the purpose you are looking for. @ Cplakidas and Fayenatic london: I can see that more Ethnic Greek categories have showed up in the last few days, despite this discussion. I suggest nominating these categories for deletion with a link to this discussion (a process I am not familiar with), for the categories that are not already empty. Place Clichy ( talk) 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I have been involved in a friendly discussion with @
Johnpacklambert: regarding the same issue with some Albanian related categories, similarly starting with the word "Ethnic". Most of them are empty. I am aware that John had nothing but good intentions of formalizing the categories according to a uniform logic. Anyway, the topic of ethnicity vs nationality in the Balkans is much more complicated. When we talk about Greek, Albanians, Bulgarians we talk about a nation, or conscience, not only ethnicity, and vice versa. Not really connected to the citizenship. The translation "Albanian mathematician" to "mathematician from Albania (Republic of Albania)" may seem right but it is not correct. It may work for Americans, US citizen = National of US, citizen of US, but not for the rest of the nationalities. Saying "...an ethnic Greek..." or "...ethnic Albanian..." can be used inside the articles to give more detailed information about people's origin, not in the very first sentence, infobox, or categories.
As an example, we have an article that states "
Eshref Ademaj (1940–1994) was an ethnic Albanian mathematician..." - instead of saying "Eshref Ademaj (1940–1994) was an Kosovar Albanian mathematician", or "Kosovar mathematician", or "Albanian mathematician from Kosovo". The word "ethnic" does not fit here. The categories follow the same logic. I don't know any non-ethnic Albanian or non-ethnic Greek btw. You are Albanian or you're not. We also have more specific denominations, as
Kosovar Albanians,
Venetian Albanians,
Ottoman Albanians, etc.
How do we call Carlo Giuseppe Verdi (1785–1867) or
Temistocle Solera (1815-1878)? An "ethnic Italian" or "Italian"?--
Mondiad (
talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that it makes little sense that category:lighting is in category:light sources. Lighting as a service and candlepower are quite rightly in cat:lighting, but are not light sources for instance. I think that both categories should be direct subcategories of category:light and that a very large wodge of both categories' entries should be moved to category:types of lamp and that made a subcategory of both of them. Spinning Spark 18:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried to add Category:21st-century cricketers to Category:21st-century Indian cricketers but I see the following message:
What should I do? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)please ping me
I see that the number of articles in Category:Monthly clean up category (Uncategorized pages) counter keeps growing. Just wondering if anyone here ever tries to tackle it? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Don't know if it's meaningful to mention it here too but WP:CFD has a backlog of some 150 category discussions to be closed. I left a similar note on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I've created a matrix showing which combinations of namespace and high level categories should/do not contain pages. For example, there should be no user talk pages below Category:Articles and there should be no articles below Category:Wikipedians.
The matrix still has quite a few "TBD"s (e.g. is it ever appropriate for a disambiguation page or a talk page to be in Category:Articles?) - I'm hoping to fix many of these before the matrix might be moved into Wikipedia namespace. Suggestions for other ways the matrix might be improved are welcome. DexDor (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This may have been around for a while, but I have only just discovered:
I had wasted hours trying to figure out why a category tree trawl using WP:AWB had produced some weird anomalies (categories which should never be subcats of the one I started from), but CatCycle solved the problem in under 60 seconds. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to join this discussion about whether or not to make the WP:SMALLCAT guideline more specific. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't this seem a trifle broad (no pun intended)? The vast majority of films have a female lead character. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Directors is for directors of creative or artistic productions: films, theatre, television, etc.
This is well-summarised in the categ description: for people who direct stage, television, radio, video, or motion picture productions for entertainment, information, or instruction. They are responsible for creative decisions, such as interpretation of script, choice of guests, set design, sound, special effects, and choreography.
The topical subcats are unambiguously named: Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors. But the head category, and national subcats of Category:Directors by nationality (e.g. Category:French directors) are ambiguous. The unqualified title "director" probably applies most commonly to directors of companies, and the title "director" is widely used for divisional managers in organisations of all types. This ambiguity has already led to Category:Corporate directors being added [2] as a subcat of Category:Directors by genre or type.
I would like to put together a group CFR to rename these categories to something which clarifies their scope without becoming too verbose. With so many categories involved, there are technical advantages to proposing a specific title (or a few options for title), so I would welcome suggestions.
My ideas so far:
Using "directors of creative worka" would lead to the following renamings:
Note that all the categs which would be renamed are {{ container}} categories (even if not tagged as such). Individual directors would still be categorised under Category:French film directors, Category:Irish theatre directors, Category:American television directors, etc.
Those are more verbose than I would like, but they don't appear too ugly or unwieldy, and they avoid the ambiguity with corporate roles. Any thoughts?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BrownHairedGirl (
talk •
contribs) 03:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I initiated at request for comment at Talk:Rafik Yousef#Request for comment regarding categorisation on the 12th of February but am yet to receive any replied. So input would be most welcome. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Your thoughts are requested at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT, mental illnesses, and learning disabilities. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there a tool that would detect circular categorization when given a category title? Something like Information -> Knowledge -> Information.-- OsamaK ( talk) 17:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Per this RfC and this CfD, Category:Fair use in... images should be moved to Category:Otherwise uncategorizable non-free images with fair use rationale. Could a category-expert do the honors? Eman235/ talk 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at this use of CatCycle.
It shows how in only 32 steps, Category:Expatriate sportspeople in the Soviet Union is a sub-cat of Category:Scotland ... via Category:George W. Bush and Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant activities.
My use of CatCycle suggests that this sort of problem is widespread. How can we fix it? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it was when a category took its name from the article? An IP keeps adding Category:World Snooker Championships to List of world snooker champions (see [3]). I believe that it is redundant per WP:SUBCAT because the article already belongs to Category:World snooker champions which in turns is a child of Category:World Snooker Championships. The IP contends that the category should be present per WP:EPON. I disagree, because surely an eponymous category for this article would be Category:World snooker Champions, as opposed to Category:World Snooker Championships. The latter would seem to be eponymous for World Snooker Championship. Can someone advise on this i.e. should the parent category be considered "eponymous" in this case and should the article be added to the category even though it is in the sub-category? Betty Logan ( talk) 11:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@ P64: Is it ok if I copy your reply over to the Snooker Project talk page, given that it affects other areas of our categorization? Betty Logan ( talk) 23:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a category tree for officers of the
Indian Air Force where
Category:Indian Air Force officers is the parent category,
Category:Indian Air Force air marshals is a subcategory and
Category:Chiefs of Air Staff (India) is a further subcategory of the second. There is currently a mixture in the categorization where some biographies are listed in two or even all three categories, while others are listed in one only. This issue came to my attention when I noticed
Vinodtiwari2608 add the parent officer category to two articles in the air marshals subcategory.
I think that in this case the general rule described at
WP:SUBCAT should apply, namely that the articles "...should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." I do not see any reason for the subcategories to be treated as non-diffusing (as described at
WP:DUPCAT). I will allow Vinodtiwari2608 to explain their reasons for thinking that the subcategories should overlap.
On a related point, because since 1966 the Chief of Air Staff has held a separate rank of Air Chief Marshall, as described
here, I think that
Category:Indian Air Force air marshals, a new
Category:Indian Air Force air chief marshals and
Category:Chiefs of Air Staff (India) should all be separate categories under the parent category. Chiefs of Air Staff can be non-diffused into either air marshall or air chief marshall depending on whether they were pre- or post-1966. But all of these should be diffused from the parent "officers" category.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk) 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure whether this is the right platform to propose this, please let me know if not.
The risk of deleting empty categories (per C1) is that they were merely emptied in order to bypass CfD, there aren't any checks on this that I know of. Proposal is postponing the actual deletion of an empty category to 14 days after tagging it as empty, instead of 4 days after tagging, so that editors of articles will have more time to revert a category removal from their article in case the deletion is controversial.
On the side I would also propose more clearly splitting the page Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion in three sections, one part for CfD explanation (current section 2 and 3 combined), one for C1 explanation (current 4.1.1 and 5 combined) and a third separate part for listing speedy renaming/merging (remainder of current section 4). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
db-catempty}}
for four days during which time no pages have been added to the category. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Look at the messy list of categories at the end of Go_(game) and Talk:Go_(game). It would look much better if it were presented in columns, don't you agree? — Tentacles Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles 18:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I see 1 line of categories at the end of Go_(game), but then there are 7 lines of hidden categories. Now, I see 8 lines of categories (not counting the 1 line of hidden categories) at the end of Talk:Go_(game). — Tentacles Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles 18:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
display:
property, to be placed in
Special:MyPage/common.css. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
div#catlinks {
-moz-column-count: 3;
-webkit-column-count: 3;
column-count: 3;
}
div#catlinks li::before {
content: normal;
}
div#catlinks li {
display: list-item;
}
3
to another positive non-zero integer value. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)If we can get some categories-experts to chime in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_abuse_of_categorization_by_IP that would be great. Trying to get a bearing on the extent of the problem and if it justifies a temporary block. Thanks. -- œ ™ 08:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
We have something of a mess with the following: Category:Filipino people of Spanish descent, Category:Spanish Filipino, Category:Spanish Filipinos, Category:Spanish Philippines. I can't work out what the intention is - I have observed that:
They could do with a thorough sortout. Notifying people who have edited those pages recently: Arius1988 ( talk · contribs), General Ization ( talk · contribs), Josephsolis ( talk · contribs), PatTag2659 ( talk · contribs). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why Birth year and living people categories have been placed at the top of category lists rather than in normal alphabetical position.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
13:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Category:Wikipedia categories named after awards, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion as a trial balloon to see if there is support for deleting other "Wikipedia categories named after..." categories. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_30#Category:Wikipedia_categories_named_after_awards in its entirety is worth a read. Pinging the participants of that discussion @ RevelationDirect, Good Olfactory, Marcocapelle, DexDor, Oculi, and Johnpacklambert:, but it's worth a read from others as well. I'm holding off on actually deleting the category for a day or two to allow editors to voice disagreement with my close if they wish to. I declined to interpret how this particular deletion affects the "Wikipedia categories named after ..." categories at large, but I don't think it should encourage a mass-nomination of all such categories. It depends a lot on what plausible parent categories exist, based on how this discussion went. ~ Rob Talk 17:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, so i should be adding this project to category talkpages? Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Due to the fact that in closing CFDs I have lately come across multiple complaints about the editing patterns of User:Stefanomione, I have re-opened his case at the Administrator's Noticeboard. The link is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_8#Roman_Empire_establishments_.281st_century_and_earlier.29:
Copied until here
User:Meclee is against having Category:Philosophy of economics within the tree of Category:Economics. Per this discussion he suggests instead to have it as a parent of Category:Economics. Personally I think it is a weird way of categorizing, as Philosophy of Economics clearly is a sub-discipline of Economics. What do other editors think of this? Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The naming of this category is confusing. It should be renamed and its scope clarified.
I see five possibilities for its scope and name.
1: "State terrorism" (controversial for example the Iraq war could be label as State terrorism. As could the dropping of the atomic bomb, many events in WW2, the destruction of Carthage etc. By its nature a POV tag.)
2: It is the same as Category:State-sponsored terrorism and should be deleted.
3: It is the same as Category:Terrorism by country and should be deleted.
4: "Terrorism committed by a state" same as option 1 POV problems.
5: "State terrorism theory" A more limited category. Jonney2000 ( talk) 05:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for editors to request instead of requesting the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors interested in categorizing are invited to comment at Category talk:Antisemitism#Racism and Discrimination. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors interested in categories are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Categories are not articles. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I seem to remember someone citing this months ago but can't remember what it was called. It was a policy where if you included a category for the article, the subject of the category had to be mentioned on the page, ideally with a supporting reference.
The closest I could find was WP:CATDEF but I thought there was something more specific than that to do with sourcing. Ranze ( talk) 16:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions to be moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Closing instructions. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I glanced at Category:Truck drivers via the awfully blatant WP:NOTMEMORIAL/ WP:NOTNEWS violation that is Darrell Ward in its present state. Anyway, in this category page, the W's are sorting in between R and S. I didn't dig any deeper to see if there was a reason for this or if it's some sort of software screwup, but I felt that it may warrant mention. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Showing_related_articles.2C_especially_on_Mobile Jytdog ( talk) 22:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Category:Animal rights advocates properly specifies that it should be applied only to persons for whom it is a defining characteristic, and not to celebrities who just happen to be supporters. However, I've been noticing that editors have been adding the category rather indiscriminately to celebrity pages. It might be a good idea to go through the category and do some cleanup. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion involving sports categories, their parent groups, and templates to populate both sets at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Continents_from_countries. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 02:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I have created, and requested template changes to populate, two new tracking categories. Like Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability, these categories combine all the entries from corresponding month-by-month tracking categories in one category. One use for this is to allow the use of Special:RandomInCategory across all tracked months at once, though there are certainly other uses. The new categories are:
— swpb T 13:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
While finishing up a few TFD mergers I came across some tracking categories used by the templates I was working on. I noticed that while both categories are tracking categories, they are neither named similarly nor listed under a "unknown parameter" supercat. The cats in question are Category:Articles with unknown parameter in Infobox rail line and Category:Pages using infobox tennis tournament with unsupported parameters. I created the IB tennis cat, modeling it after the {{ infobox company}} tracking cat, but I have two questions.
If #1 isn't possible/feasible, then I guess I won't worry about it, but the thought of getting #2 going is rather tempting. Primefac ( talk) 04:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Please create. Pe-ga-sos ( talk) 14:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I'm interested in learning to what extent, if any, the general rules on parent/child categorization are applied to articles on countries. For example, is the article on Mongolia really supposed to be categorized as a country in Northeast Asia AND as a country in East Asia AND as a country in Asia?
I will greatly appreciate any guidance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's better to maintain a categorization of the countries in both the parent category and the sub category for reasons of an overall view. For example, the Category:East African countries shows the countries belonging to this region, the Category:Countries in Africa shows the countries of entire Africa. I guess this will be very convenient to the users. Wwikix ( talk) 10:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have seen nothing from this editor as to any clear understanding of what categorization is about, the guidelines or policies - and simply the mantra of overall view and convenient to the users - which raises concerns as to whether there is a clear understanding of how wikipedia works... JarrahTree 10:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the structure:
In these circumstances it is reasonable to categorize the North African countries both in the Category:Countries in Africa and in the Category:North African countries. Wwikix ( talk) 13:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Wwikix: it might help if you were to frame you suggestions by reference to the existing guidelines under WP:CAT. For example, one or more of the following:
Other editors might not agree with you, but at least it would be clear that you understood the existing guidelines, and we would have some common ground to base the discussion on. Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
We now have a legacy of a system of category creation and usage that has been left us by the blocked user. Is there anyone who watches this page, willing and able to distinguish between the ok edits by the blocked user. That is - those edits that were in process of creating category overlap, or multiple cat/subcat confusion? It would be good to clarify where the experienced category editors might be able to help on this.
At the ANI page where I lodged my concern I used as an example:
The questions that arise from that happy little collection could take up a big space, the 'by country' tree sitting with the continent, and the cat/subcat combination(s), as well as other issues, but I use it here simply as an illustration/example that I believe we have to grapple with in the reviewing the set of edits.
It is clear there were more watchers than involved, and at this point if someone wants to go in - I think it would be a very good handle if there was a systematic appraisal or breakdown of the edits:
I do not think there should be blanket reverting unless a good case can be made to do so. JarrahTree 00:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there an alternate name to the category for what in the US is referred to as a Category:Vietnam veteran? It was surprising to me that this category (or the redirect to the appropriate category) does not exist. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I came across RockNRollWiki ( talk · contribs) who is removing a ton of cats from articles (cats that look valid to me), plus blanking and creating a bunch of categories. Given the long string of cats they've created that have been deleted, and my lack of familiarity with the category system, I thought I would bring it to your attention. Cheers, Primefac ( talk) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Just was wondering if it's acceptable or even necessary to add content and citations to category pages like is done for this category. WP:CAT#Creating category pages suggests that it's not, but not sure what should be done is such a case. Just delete the text? Move it to the talk page? Something else? It seems like somebody might have mistaken the page for an article based upon this edit sum. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI - I have made a proposal for an alphabetical sort function to be added to the category section of articles as part of the m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. SFB 00:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I don't normally ask for help but I really need some for a category-related issue. I've been having a bit of a slow-but-now-speeding-up edit war with a user who is intent on categorizing certain articles about coats of arms with a "key sort" that looks like this: for the article " Coat of arms of FOO", he would like it to be categorized like this
[[Category:FOO| ]]
See, for example, his recent edit on Coat of arms of Whitehorse, Yukon.
In other words, he wants to categorize coats of arms articles as "key articles". The guideline #8 of WP:SORTKEY states: "Use a space as the sort key for a key article for the category."
Shortly after I pointed this guideline out to the user, suggesting that this sorting was inappropriate, he changed the definition of "key article" in the Wikipedia:Glossary (!) to state that a heraldic coat of arms in an example of a key article (which is clearly is not, in my opinion). There was no proposal of this edit to the definition made beforehand or contemporaneous with the edit, so I have been repeatedly removing it while trying to have it discussed on the Glossary talk page, but only this user is participating in that discussion, and he has repeatedly reverted my removals of it.
I thought about an RFC, but my patience on the issue is all but spent and this is the most I can muster.
Could some users who are familiar with categories please take a look at the discussion here and weigh in?
Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that Category:Murdered activists was deleted in 2007, and I understand it was deleted because the murdered activists actually belong to Category:Murdered politicians. Also because there is a category named Category:Assassinated activists.
I think that's wrong for two reasons:
I've already found four murdered historians and I'm not sure what category to create: Category:Murdered scholars or Category:Murdered academics or maybe Category:Murdered scholars and academics (as a sub-category of Category:Scholars and academics)? These are the persons: John Holmes Jenkins, Adrian Greenwood, David Rattray, Nicolae Iorga. — Ark25 ( talk) 13:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Country-specific WP:NAMESORT cases (Thailand). It's about how Thailand-specific category sorting should apply for biographical articles. Please share your thoughts if you're interested. Thanks. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
A user has recently populated the country subcats under Category:Television programs by country and Category:Television series by country. However, these two by-country categories are hopelessly overlapping, and the parents Category:Television programs and Category:Television series are problematic as well. Merging is probably in order, but given the large number of involved categories, I'd like to hear some more opinions first. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Political science by country is currently categorised under Category:Science and technology by country, but this is clearly incorrect. "Science and technology" in this sense isn't meant to include social sciences in general. Would Category:Academia by country be an appropriate category, or should Category:Social sciences by country be created? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be very helpful if people could contribute to the discussions at Categories for discussion about joke categorisation on user pages. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have recently noticed in my trawling through the categories that there are a few red categories which don't seem to actually exist - like Category:Winter Olympic competitors by sport and year. It's empty. So, I wondered if anyone could explain what is going on. They are mostly marked "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted". If it has been deleted, how does it exist? Rathfelder ( talk) 12:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
If anyone's got some time over Christmas, Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links and Wikipedia:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories ( Quarry for latest version) can always do with some attention. I've cleaned out the former at times in the past, I've been grinding down the latter from ~7000 to 1900 or so with some help from User:Rathfelder and others, but won't get it done by year-end as I'd hoped. Creating red-linked categories isn't my idea of fun, I've plenty of better things to be getting on with, but building the category network feels important for bots and Hotcat alike. Can I gently suggest that when people add a red-link category they actually create the cat rather than assuming that the category fairies will look after it? The date category folks seem to be the worst for that, about 80% of that first report are dates and I cleaned out all the dates from the second report a few weeks ago and it's now back up in the hundreds. Le Deluge ( talk) 11:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion by another editor. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Category see also § Gibberish needs fixing about the "sentence"
|project=
: Any valid interwiki or interproject prefix from de:, fr:, es: access to other language Wikipedias to cross-sister wiki's using sister projects abbreviations such as B:, Q:, S:, v: etc., and, where applicable, both interlingual and cross-project links can be rendered as follows:-- Thnidu ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal, for Template:State establishment category, to remove "Category:YYYY in international relations". A state (dis)establishment generally has little do with international relations. Besides hundreds of international relations categories only contain state (dis)establishment child categories, which makes these categories quite redundant, since the content is already in "Category:YYYY in politics" as well. (Question: is this a right platform for a discussion about this proposal?) Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
So far I've never encountered a category like this: Category:Russian history articles needing expert attention. It doesn't have a "needing expert attention" parent. Shall we just leave it alone or should we discuss it at CfD? Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I just left a question on Category talk:People of Bosniak descent, can anyone take a look? Thanks. — Ark25 ( talk) 20:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You have Category:Historical plays. This would mean, I assume, plays about actual events. But subcats for that are like Category:Plays set in the Middle Ages. Set in does not mean it's about real events, at all. This matters IMO.
You end up with Jekyll & Hyde (musical) in Category:Plays set in the 19th century which is in Category:Plays by century of setting which is in Category:Plays by period of setting which is in Category:Historical plays. But Jekyll & Hyde are not historical figures.
It's late and I'm not a category maven, so untangling all this looks really hard to me. It's fine to have categories "Plays set in the X century", but the subcats of Category:Historical plays ought to be categories like "Historical plays about the X century", which is a different thing, although (with very rare exceptions) they would intersect... "Historical plays about the X century" being a subcat of "plays set in the X century" as well as of "Historical plays by century".
Right? I'm afraid if I tried to fix this I'd make a dog's breakfast of it... maybe some category maven here can figure this out? Herostratus ( talk) 07:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Editors interested in categorization are invited to comment at Talk:Strasserism#Category:Nazism, where there is a disagreement about inclusion of articles in both parent and child categories. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Similarly at Talk:White pride#Category:White supremacy. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The same editor who thinks that WP:SUBCAT ought not apply to White Pride apparently also thinks that WP:SUBCAT is " nonsense" when applied to Great White Fleet in Albany, Western Australia in 1908.
Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Great White Fleet in Albany, Western Australia in 1908#Category:Albany, Western Australia. (I use the term "discussion" loosely here, because the editors who don't like SUBCAT haven't yet indicated why). Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've found this category loop: Category:English colonization of the Americas → Category:History of the Thirteen Colonies → Category:Colonization of the Americas → Category:English colonization of the Americas but I'm not sure at which point to break it. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 14:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I see that blocked IP
5.69.225.209 has made several hundred edits over the last few days, many of which are adding and deleting categories. Some of these edits are positive, some negative and others show signs of good faith but need tidying. Many edits follow a pattern of replacing Category: English (type of person)
by the less precise Category: British (type of person)
. I think the changes could benefit from a review by someone familiar with WP categorisation, especially of British people. I'm willing to help out but I'm no category expert and there are quite a few articles affected, so it may need to be a team effort. Any advice please?
Certes (
talk) 19:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Reggie.clever ( talk · contribs) has created two categories, Category:Big House Publishing Artists and Category:Big House Companies, which are probably related - but has put them inside themselves, with no true parent categories. What would be suitable parents for these?
Since (what appears to be) a related article, Big House Publishing, has been created and deleted several times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big House Publishing), maybe these categories should be deleted too. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I was doing a bit of non-free image clean up when I noticed that the album cover art, etc. for stuff by Joe Satriani is categorized into Category:Album covers. I know that artists/bands often have sub-categories specific to them, so I created Category:Joe Satriani album covers, but I'm not sure if I did it correctly. Also, it seems as there was a Category:Joe Satriani which was CSD way back in 2007, but not sure if that means a category for the cover art shouldn't be created at all. Anyway, any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Editors interested in categorization are invited to comment at Talk:List of types of killing#Categories: Murder, Homicide as to whether List of types of killing should or should not be listed in the specific categories Category:Murder, Category:Suicide. I suggest that they ought not be, because the categories are far more specific than that article, but Hmains disagrees. Mitch Ames ( talk) 00:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a question about inclusion of Category:Antisemitism in Haavara Agreement. Additional opinions at Talk:Haavara Agreement#Antisemitism Category would be helpful. VQuakr ( talk) 07:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to post this. I'm seeking additional opinions regarding a dispute with another user over the proper categorization of an article, and the correct application (or not) of defining characteristics. If you can help, please weigh in at Talk:Full communion#Categorisation. Thank you in advance, Mathglot ( talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are tons of categories relating to fictional characters ethnic background and some ethno-religious categories such as Category:Fictional Jews but the ones only for a characters religion seem to be non-existent. Category:Islam in fiction exists and categories for real life people such as Category:Muslims and Category:Former Muslims exists as well. Why have categories like Category:Fictional Muslims or Category:Fictional Christians been deleted? I don't mean to be argumentative I'm just kind of curious. ★Trekker ( talk) 22:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to see a category for meeting formats. I don't have much experience in categorization, so I thought I would propose it here first. I was prompted by the list I stumbled upon at Unconference#Facilitation styles. I considered Category:Meeting facilitation, but some relevant formats, such as World Café, don't involve a facilitator in the same way as others. How about Category:Meeting formats? Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 22:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Zingvin keeps adding history categories to finance articles, see e.g. the edit history of Stock market since 23 February and see the current content of Category:Economic history of the Netherlands. I've told them on their talk page not to do this, but they don't react and just keep going on. What is the best action to proceed? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi people. I have just proposed this category creation for stub categories (please refer to that thread in order to avoid reduplications). Best regards, -- Fadesga ( talk) 11:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The template {{ Main category}} is used on both category pages and article pages. In the former, it just duplicates the categorization at the bottom of the page (see, for example, Category:Wikipedia backlog). In the latter, it is generally placed in the body of the article (see, for example, Atlantic Ocean#History), which is contrary to the editing guidelines for categorization: "By convention, category declarations are placed at the end of the wikitext". Can anyone think of a reason why this template should not be deleted? RockMagnetist( talk) 16:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmains and I have an ongoing disagreement about categorisation, and I would appreciate other editors' input on the matter. The essence of the disagreement is that I have been removing articles (and categories) from parent and grandparent (etc) categories where the removed article has been duplicated in both a child and parent category. This removal is per WP:SUBCAT, which says, clearly and unambiguously (with my added emphasis here):
... 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) of that category ...
In these cases the categories are not marked as {{ Non-diffusing subcategory}} or {{ All included}}. Hmains disagrees with these edits, and has been reverting them. Basroch refugee camp is a recent example. I removed it from Category:European migrant crisis because that category is a parent of Category:Calais migrant crisis (1999–present), which the article is in directly. Hmains reverted the edit. We have discussed the matter on my talk page [5] [6] [7] but we seem no closer to resolving the disagreement. In some cases Hmains has added {{ All included}} when reverting my edits (see [8]), but has suggested that might not be the case in future [9] [10].
Personally I do not think the duplication in child and parent categories is necessary in most cases - as SUBCAT says, they should be exceptions, not the norm - so I don't intend to add the {{ Non-diffusing subcategory}} or {{ All included}} every time I find duplications. However if an editor (Hmains or other) marks a category with the template then I won't intentionally remove the duplication. It appears though that Hmains is not inclined to add the templates either - only to revert my edits.
I'd like to hear the opinions of other editors, to help resolve this ongoing dispute. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree with you....— Thank you.
the imperfectness of the system shouldn't stop us from making the right decision in any individual case— I agree that WP:IAR exists, but exceptions should be " rare" and better justified. (For the purpose of this disucssion, an appropriate template on the category page would be "better justified".)
who am I to decide whether a category should be considered diffusing or non-diffusing— if you don't know whether a particular category should be an exception to the general rule of SUBCAT, then perhaps you should just to follow the general rule of SUBCAT - and not duplicate the categorization.
I am perfectly fine ... with categories being both, i.e. partially diffusing and partially non-diffusing ...— I don't think that "I don't care about the guideline" is a very compelling argument.
it does not say ... that the lack of such a template is in itself proof that a category is diffusing
"In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. ... 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) of that category"
Non-diffusing subcategories should be identified with a template on the category page:
only option 2 is a true description of the situation, but ... it is hard for the individual editor, ... to make that determination— Those editors who feel that a category should be non-diffusing can easily resolve the problem by putting the appropriate template on the relevant categories, instead of complaining about the editors who pay some attention to the guidelines.
I think we should first try and see if we can elucidate the concept of a diffusing category a bit better, perhaps with several examples.– The concept is already well defined in WP:CAT and I have repeatedly quoted the relevant sections of it. We can discuss some guidelines about how to decide whether a particular category should be non-diffusing or all-included - but in the meantime we have a perfectly good and acceptable method of indicating that intent, by simply applying the appropriate template. Surely it's not so hard to just use that method.
Isn't there a template allowing the creator of an empty category to speedy-delete it? And if so, why has 15 minutes of searching failed to find reference to it? Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 14:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-author}}
and {{
db-catempty}}
. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 20:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Wikipedia category to be moved to Template:Maintenance category. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 11:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just begun delving into the issue of categories. Consequently, I have some generic questions and observations. As a Milhist coordinator, my interest is in how categories can help with curation of the project by identifying categories directly linked to the project and those peripheral to the project, both in the main space and not in the main space.
I have been browsing the category tree. [11] Even the concise view is very large and causing me issues. I noticed at Category:1792 establishments that Category:Kentucky is the first sub category. The tree for Kentucky then fills a page. On the page for Category:Kentucky, I see Category:States of the United States. The category "States of the United States", is the "key" category to which Kentucky belongs.
My observation would be that the size of the category tree could be greatly reduced by displaying the full detail of the tree for Kentucky only at the point in the tree of its "key" category (ie, where it is preceed by its key category). Elsewhere in the tree where Kentucky appears, a flag or tag could be added to indicate that there is much more detail. There is the possibility of an interactive feature - ie (±). The interactive feature could expand or collapse the detail for Kentucky at that point on the tree page.
At places where Category:Kentucky appears, the key category to which it belongs can also be shown eg { Category:States of the United States}. The curly brackets are used to indicate that it is the key category. Of course, this would be redundant at the point in the tree where it is preceded by its key category. This would be at the "main path". An interactive feature might navigate to where Kentucky appears in its "main path" - ie (→).
A "main path" follows a tree of "key categories". For Kentucky, this would be: Category:Countries, Category:Countries by continent, Category:Countries in North America and finally Category:States of the United States. It is at this point in the category tree that the full tree for Category:Kentucky would be displayed with all of its branches. You will appreciate that I have used Kentucky as an example to illustrate a principle.
I see a lot of different categories of stubs. Consequently, I see a lot of structure duplicated for stubs (and some other things). However, the path structure does not necessarily mirror the "main" structure. It should (allowing for the absence of branches in stubs that are unpopulated and therefore redundant). I would have thought that "stubs" should be a primary category yet there are many categories of stubs that are primary categories themself - Category:History stubs. I cold suggest a functionality that might obviate such duplication. Instead of a discrete category of Category:Armenian history stubs, instead, it would appear as [[Armenian history|stub]] or {{stub category|[[Armenian history stubs]]}}. The specific syntax is immaterial, it is the effect or concept that is pertinent. The functionality creates a virtual tree. As such, it reduces the "actual" amount of data that must be managed and processed. The functionality used for stubs could then be applied to other Wiki internal categories which also mirror the "main" category tree.
Under Category:Buildings and structures by type, I noticed fences, gates, gatehouses and walls that (IMO) all fall to a sub category of barriers? At what number of subcategories within a category is it appropriate to diffuse and reduce the number. I also noted: forts, fortifications, castles, barracks, Military buildings and structures, Military installations and camps (in which some subcategories are military). Is there an easy process to group and diffuse categories to a sub category - [[Category:Military Buildings and structures by type]]?
I saw another group of categories - it contained a number of different categories of "people" as well as quite a lot of other categories. Within this were "people by occupation" and "sports people", each with a number of subcategories. Technically, not everybody who plays a sport is a sportsperson by occupation. However, the title "people by occupation" could be re-titled "people by occupation or field of endeavour". Alternatively, the category page could "define" what falls within the category, such that the category "occupation" is defined as "an occupation or field of endeavour". Is this how things are intended to work? It would make sense if the category somehow defined its scope and that this was made explict in guides about how categories work. Just a thought.
I am seeing opportunities to categorise in a lot of places through the tree based on broad categories: who, what, when, where and why. These could be applied at the highest level in the first instance. I can also see that they could be applied to branches at any level. So, for the category, Kentucky the subcategories could be broadly categorised as: people, places (localities building geographical features), things from Kentucky (animals or objects), a Kentucky timeline and history, and other things that are more abstract. I would describe these as "key groupings". Not every subcategory following from a particular branch will fall to a "key grouping" but it provides a "conceptual basis" for structuring the category tree.
Furthermore, at any particular branch, "key subgrouping sets" may become apparent which have some commonality for other similar branches in the tree. Applying such a concept would result in a "conceptually consistent" structure. Sets of key groupings. So, I can see that all countries would have a similar subcategory structure based on "key subgrouping sets". In effect, "key subgrouping country" would be a boilerplate for all countries. Such a concept does not restrict the addition of additional subcategories to the set for a particular country. It does not impose a "one size fits all" - rather, it should acknowledge commonality to the extent that there is commonality while also, embracing diversity. "Key subgroupings" would share a common naming convention - eg "people from country XYZ". Of course, the names used in the stem of key subgrouping sets would need to be agreed.
Another key grouping I can identify are those things that relate to Wikipedia as a domain - stubs, hidden categories (as a category) and anything else relating to Wikipedia as a construct as opposed to the collection of encyclopedic articles in the main space.
Another matter would relate to the catergory of occupations and the category of persons from from Country XYZ by occupation. The occupations in the second set should (by definition) be a subset of the first category. Also, "occupations by country" in the first set should exactly equal the second set. The second set should mirror the first set.
The first set may have the occupation, head of state populated by: president, governor, monach etc. However, country XYZ only has presidents. The category of heads of state is redundant in this case. In the second set, heads of state is an implied and omitted category. Because it is omitted, the two sets don't have the same structure. Consequently, they cannot be directly compared. To overcome this, I suggest "transparent category levels" in the second set. This is not to be confused with "hidden categories". By this, I mean that the tree structure in the first set is maintained in the second set but levels of category with only one referent (no branching) are "transparent" (not normally seen) and filtered from the normal tree structure report. The advantage is that it maintains a direct correspondence between the two sets and allows a direct comparison. A new occupation category added to the second set should also appear in the first set. Maintaining the structures transparently allows a direct comparison to reveal such and addition. Also, when attempting to add a new occupation category to the second set, existing occupations in the first set can be revealed. This could facilitate identifying whether this "new category" already exists in the first set (even if it isn't a perfect match.
At present, WP lacks the ability to "browse" by category from the top down. A more defined structure would facilitate this. I can see this being analogous to Windows file explorer. The directory/category structure can be explored as one option or a search made across the main space. An additional feature would be to search by word within a category. Yes, this is already available in Wiki search but not with the degree of ease comparable with Windows file explorer.
Categories are under-exploited.
Just some thoughts, ideas and observations. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
After closing the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 10, I was thinking that it may be helpful to reconsider how templates such as {{ EstcatCountryCentury}} (e.g. at Category:5th-century establishments in India) and {{ EstcatCountry1stMillennium}} are used. The presence of so many redlinks is just an invitation to recreate these categories for even just one article. I am not sure what the solution is, or even if there is a problem to solve, but thought I would at least mention it. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree really good work here. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
An RFC has been opened about categorization of events by past or current country, see the link here. Feel free to join the discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the process for changing the title of a category? I am thinking about this category in particular Category:Royal_Navy_officers_who_were_court-martialed which, as it is about British Royal Navy officers, should more appropriately use the British English spelling of court-martialled.-- Ykraps ( talk) 14:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Conflict with Category:Kvng RTH -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"is there a specific policy that says editors are not allowed to create and maintain hidden categories for the purpose of improving workflow?"which, in this context, refers to categories created by an editor for their own personal workflow. @ Kvng: to notify of this post - requesting help from the categories enthusiasts. Pam D 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There seem to be many categories of particular universities' faculty and notable people. But the definition for inclusion is not stated on the category page. Can it be? Should a university faculty category include both current and former faculty? Bo99 ( talk) 16:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi-I notice that categories about families that the given name is used instead of going alphabetical by surname. The reason given is that various individuals in these families have the same first name. I always thought the names should be listed alphabetically according to the surname. Clarification is needed about this? Is there something I need to know? Thank you- RFD ( talk) 14:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Category:William Shakespeare is in Category:17th-century writers. Although the Bard himself undoubtedly belongs in that category, many other subjects in Category:William Shakespeare (such as the Thane of Cawdor and the asteroid 2985 Shakespeare) do not. This causes problems: for example, Henry Green (politician, died 1399) comes up in my search for Category:16th-century English people. Should we unlink this category from its parent categories, or have I missed something? Certes ( talk) 12:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This type of categorisation seems to be widespread. Category:Charles Dickens is in Category:Victorian novelists, even though Lant Street and The Daily News (UK) shouldn't be. Someone doesn't understand categorisation, and it may be me. Or perhaps no one cares any more now that Wikidata is emerging. I'll leave things alone. Certes ( talk) 11:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sufficiently familiar with categorisation to sort this out this tangle. The Bloomsbury Group was an informal group of people, some painters, some writers, some had other (or no particular) occupation. Barbara Hiles was a painter but her article is categorised in Category:Bloomsbury Group which (ultimately) is a subcat of Category:English artists and so Mitch Ames has removed the latter category from the article. I know this is technically correct but is seems to me it leaves the categorisation here in an unsatisfactory state because no category is now defining her as a painter rather than various other occupations. Perhaps her article should be removed from Category:Bloomsbury Group – she is not included in the Bloomsbury Group article, probably deliberately, and her article only says she was "associated with members of the Bloomsbury Group". However, I feel, subjectively, Bloomsbury is defining for her. Or is it legitimate to include her in a subcat of Category:English artists, say Category:English women painters? An even more difficult situation is for, say, Virginia Woolf. She is canonically "Bloomsbury Group" but should her article therefore be removed from several writers categories? Finally, and going beyond my level of competence, should Category:Bloomsbury Group be non-diffusing? Thincat ( talk) 12:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
making category A a member of category B can mean one of two things. Sometimes it means that every member of A is a member of B; sometimes it doesn't.— It should mean that (most) members of A are members of B. WP:SUBCAT says quite explicitly (with my insertions of A, B for example): "When making one category [A] a subcategory of another [B], ensure that the members of the subcategory [A] really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent [B] also." Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I have come across two categories, Category:African-American sportsmen and Category:White Americans, which were rather arbitrarily placed on a few articles of individual people while they could theoretically include thousands. I have no idea whether they should continue to exist, be rapidly expanded, be redefined to non-person articles, just left with an arbitrary selection of articles, or whatever else is appropriate, so I would like to bring this to the attention of more category-savvy Wikipedians. 9 3 21:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone determine how Category:2018 NPSL season has been added to this article as well as User:Nick40ghs/2018 Virginia Beach City FC season. I can't find the syntax in their respective edit windows. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 06:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Categorization for some ongoing discussion. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 12:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking for a category to put Template:List of publications intro and Template:SI unit lowercase in. I imagine something similar to Category:Documentation shared content templates but for mainspace. Does such a category exist? I know it there are concerns about these kinds of templates in WP:Template namespace#Guidelines, but all the more reason to group them together so we can scrutinize them appropriately. Any ideas? Daask ( talk) 22:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:WikiProject Category sorting to be moved to WP:WikiProject Categories/taskforce/category sorting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 04:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Further input is requested at Category talk:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants#Sorting -- wooden superman 09:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Project members may be interested in this discussion re: whether or not we should categorize all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)