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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I think it's time to revive an idea that I floated before: creating {{ Category redirect}}s to resolve the WP:ENGVAR variations in category names using the word "organisation(s)" or "organization(s)".
This is an application to category-space of the principle set out at MOS:COMMONALITY:
If one variant spelling appears in a title, make a redirect page to accommodate the others, as with artefact and artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and linking.
Over 15,000 categories contains the word "[Oo]rgani[SZ]ation(s)". Some are proper names, such as Category:International Labour Organization (more such categories can be found under Category:Wikipedia categories named after organizations.)
However the overwhelmingly majority of these categories are descriptive titles created by Wikipedia editors per WP:NDESC. See e.g. Category:Scientific organizations and its many subcats, or Category:Organizations by date of establishment plus its subcats.
The choice between the Z-spelling and the S-spelling is largely random. In categories which relate to a specific country, then where that country has particular ties to one spelling, the category can be renamed to that country's preferred usage. But this leaves two large sets of categories where the choice is essentially random, defaulting to the choice by the editor who created it:
That leaves the overwhelming majority of such categories with a basically random choice between S- and Z- spellings.
The unpredictability of spelling is a nuisance for both readers and editors, who have no means of determining which spelling to use.
Back in 2017, I proposed using BHGbot to create category redirects from one spelling to the other. However, the discussion at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 3 seemed to run into the sands, so I abandoned the idea.
Then in April 2019, I tried another approach: an RFC to set aside ENGVAR for all Wikipedia categories which use the word "organisation"/"organization" as part of a descriptive name per WP:NDESC, and standardize them to use the "Z" spelling, i.e. "organization" rather than "organisation". See WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC:_spelling_of_"organisation"/"organization"_in_descriptive_category_names.
That discussion turned into a huge procedural trainwreck, with votestacking, multiple closes, and at least one close reviewed at WP:AN. It was finally closed as "no consensus" after more than five months ... and although the closer specifically said "no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination", I have no appetite for going there again. There are I many things I could say about conduct in that RFC, but they wouldn't help. The fact is that the community doesn't seem able to discuss that idea in a way which might lead to a consensus. I still think that for metadata such as categories, standardisation of this minor variation of spelling would be good thing, but I accept that it's not gonna happen.
So that brings me back to the idea of category redirects. Having reviewed the 2017 BRFA discussion, it seems to be that I had screwed up by not having a prior discussion before opening a BRFA ... but that at BRFA, all concerns had been satisfied, with one exception: false positives.
I have looked at this from as many angles as I can find, and I can only think of one type of situation where such a redirect may inappropriate:
This situation seems to me to be so rare that it probably doesn't exist at all. If there is significant concern about this, I could screen for such cases by adding another layer of list-comparison to my checks, but I don't think that it is needed.
If there is consensus here, I propose to open a new BRFA. Using new tools which give me a list of all existing categories, I propose to use BHGbot to create these spelling-variation redirects to all categories which include the whole word "[Oo]rgani[sz]ation(s)". That would include proper names, and project categories as well as content categories.
The methodology is:
{{Category redirect|Anti-Foobar organizations|bot=BHGbot}}
Yesterday, I did a trial run of list-making, which gave me a list of 12,639 {{ category redirect}}s to create. If the bot is approved, I will rebuild the list so that it's up-to-date.
Please give your feedback on either the principle or the methodology, or both.
That's why I propose creating category redirects. Sadly, I don't see any sign that you read the proposal before replying. Please will you take the time to read it now?The unpredictability of spelling is a nuisance for both readers and editors, who have no means of determining which spelling to use
This proposal just applies that long-established principle consistently to this corner of category space; it's already used in about 3,000 such categories, so this is just using a bot to finish the job.If one variant spelling appears in a title, make a redirect page to accommodate the others, as with artefact and artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and linking.
Pick whatever'cos
no doubt one will be along shortly to 'correct' itis flawed in three respects:
satisfy[ing] some editors preference for one spelling to display over another. On the contrary, the whole pint of it is that it will not change the spelling which is displayed on any unredirected page. It's about making the spelling a non-issue by making either variant usable ... and the fact that you make that allegation is evidence that you don't understand what is proposed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
circumvent a widely accepted MOS guidelineas you wrongly asserted in your first comment, it's actually an attempt to apply the MOS. Your choice not to read the linked and quoted part of the MOS is not a flaw in my explanation.
makework, you clearly have no interest in ensuring that articles are accurately categorised as editors intend. That's a choice which you are quite entitled to make ... but it's no basis for opposing the work of those editors who do try make categorisation work. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
{{Category redirect|Anti-Foobar organizations|bot=BHGbot}}
--
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 12:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)The bot authorisation request BHGbot 7 was approved yesterday for a trial run of 50 edits.
That trial run has been completed, and is awaiting review: see WP:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot_7#Discussion, which includes full details of the trial. Any editors who want to offer feedback on the trial can do so at that page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 7 has been approved. [5] Many thanks to those who offered their feedback here.
I am now making the lists for the bot's first run. Some of the 3 quarry jobs taken 5–12 hours, so the list-making may not be complete until tomorrow. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:BHGbot 7's first run is underway. 12,420 redirect pages to create: see User:BHGbot/7/List 1.
The edits can be tracked at Special:Contributions/BHGbot. Since this is a non-urgent task, the bot is working slowly, currently at a little over 4 edits per minute. At this rate, the task will take about a week to complete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Folks here might be interested in chiming in at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 32#Killing cats. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 14:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Category:Roman Catholic prayers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Manabimasu ( talk) 01:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This user's edits keep showing up in my watchlist; I'm not enough of a subject matter expert to determine whether or not they are appropriate, but I'm concerned by the sweeping changes being made. Would appreciate if someone more involved with categories could review. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:SDZeroBot/Category cycles. — andrybak ( talk) 18:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI, I have filed a BRFA for a manually-operated bot to add {{ set category}} template to categories that are WP:SETCATs. – SD0001 ( talk) 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed this recently-created template (I believe it was translated from the Turkish Wikipedia) intended to automatically populate the headers of categories. Is this useful, or does it duplicate pre-existing templates? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Autocat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This is due to unavoidable consequences of a software update - "The sorting of some category pages will be distorted – all pages which have been updated with the new software version will use the new sorting while untouched pages still use the old sorting. As such, Ops need to run a maintenance script to update the sorting for old entries. The distortions may last [...] a few days on English Wikipedia. The start-time will depend upon when the migration script reaches each wiki."
For the original announcement, a bit more detail and any updates see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Update to ICU Unicode library. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently the note at Category:Industry says
pointing to the DAB industry (for the reasons of this being a DAB see Talk:Industry (economics)). This makes it unclear which content/meaning the category should have:
There was an old proposal to give the category the second meaning: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 20#Category:Industry, which was closed as No consensus mainly on technical reasons as far as I understand it.
The current content of the category is more in line with the first meaning. In particular the sub-category Category:Industries clearly has the first meaning (e.g. it includes the Category:Service industries which matches/belongs to the Tertiary sector of the economy). This sub-category relationship would therefore be wrong if the category got the second meaning.
So how to clean this up? -- S.K. ( talk) 02:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Harvard University § Some substantial category cleanup needed. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I just happened upon the contributions of 169.1.11.199 (ping: @ 169.1.11.199:) who in the last few days has been busy with what I suspect is redundant categorization of South African taxa. Random examples: Arthroleptella rugosa, Cape platanna, sentinel rock thrush. Going off the first example, it seems to me that there is redundancy in "Endemic amphibians of South Africa", "Category:Fauna of South Africa", and "Endemic fauna of South Africa". Could someone advise as to whether a single one of these would do the job instead? I suspect that previously present "Endemic amphibians of South Africa", as being most specific, is actually all we want?
(I don't look foward to cleaning up 300 articles, so if there is an issue here, I'd apply for a mass rollback.) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
After closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_29#Category:Chefs_who_committed_suicide, what is the best way to proceed? Nominating subcategories of Category:Suicides by occupation one by one will lead to a lot of repetition and hence, probably, low participation in the discussions. While nominating a lot of them simultaneously may end as a trainwreck. Is there some smart middle way? Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Please see:
Template talk:R to project namespace#RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are a significant number of categories which get tagged with {{ Monthly clean up category}} and added to their monthly page in Category:Clean-up categories even though they are not cleanup categories. For example, Category:EngvarB from April 2014. There's no backlog and nothing that needs to be cleaned up here.
These should probably be tagged with a new template such as {{ Monthly tracking category}} - and added to a category like Category:Tracking categories from April 2014 - of which Category:Clean-up categories from April 2014 would also be a subcategory in. As-is, the current system makes it look like non-issues are serious backlogs and vastly overestimates the (still large) amount of work that needs to be done. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 10:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: also posted to the WikiProject Cleanup talkpage. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 10:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
hi, cat editors recently changed the above cat from "Fiction about the moon" to the above ( the discussion is here), i had a quick look at the reason ie. "most appear to be set on the moon/in space" yes most but not all! so now how can articles about, for example, books that are not set on the moon but where the moon is key/substantial to the story be categorized? also JJMC89 bot III has done a mass move to this new/renamed cat(?), who is going to "fix" the articles for which this category is now incorrect? thanks, Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following categories should, in my opinion, be replaced with their plain English equivalents:
The English titles are way more informative. Someone who doesn't know the Italian art of this period won't have to guess what Seicento means. It's worth noting that not even the Italian Wikipedia uses this rather cryptic convention: it:Categoria:Compositori italiani — capmo ( talk) 15:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I am thinking of creating a new category on the English Wikipedia that bundles up all the articles that deal with topics in developing countries. To do that, I searched up articles that have "developing countries" or similar in their title. I searched for an existing category that bundles them together but couldn't find one. Does it already exist? I am aware of the category "international development" but I don't think it quite captures what I am after ( /info/en/?search=Category:International_development). I am thinking of a category called "Topics about developing countries" or similar? Here are the articles that I found so far which I would put into that category:
Your opinions are welcome at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to remove year of birth/death categories when the claim is removed from the article body. — The Earwig ⟨ talk⟩ 16:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This may be of interest to the Special:WantedCategories crew and anyone who creates a lot of categories with a year in the name. If you put {{
Copycat}} into the edit window of a year category and preview it, it will scan for the last three years of sibling categories and if it finds one, copy the contents to the preview window. From where it can easily be copy and pasted into the edit window. And combine that with a preload to make an URL and a link in my vector.js
, and creating year categories now takes a single click in my sidebar and a copy-and-paste. The code's a mess, there's not much error-correction and it would be nice to add decades, seasons, centuries etc - it was really just a proof of principle. But it works surprisingly well, and really speeds up making those categories that can use it. It feels like it ought to be possible to get the content into the edit window somehow, using double substitutions or sending the name as a parameter to the preload or something, but I haven't been able to figure it out. Whilst I'm here, another little thing I've made for the SWCers is {{
Category User iso-n}} which is a parameterless way to create user language subcategories like
Category:User awa-1 etc.
Le Deluge (
talk) 22:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:American Jews says articles should be moved down into its sub-categories, but apparently has ~2800 articles in it (directly).
The first article I looked at, Charles L. Aarons, is for a judge, so I looked under Category:American Jews by occupation for Category:Jewish American judges or Category:Jewish American jurists, which don't exist. I'm considering creating the former (maybe as a sub-cat of Category:Jewish American attorneys?) and moving that article and others (including Ruth Bader Ginsburg) to it.
Am I on the right track?
As far as how to do it, I'm thinking using Petscan or the like to find the intersections and then HotCat to move them, if that's possible.
(For those whose hair on the back of their neck just stood up, I feel you – lists like this have been problematic over our history. This is not that. Just trying to diffuse an existing category.) —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 19:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
field in which Jewishness was definingin relation to the existing Category:American Jews by occupation sub-cats. Or are some of those OSE? In theory, I don't see how most of the sub-cats of Category:American Jews by occupation exist because the subject article
should be treated or considered differently. Perhaps more specifically, what would be the difference in rationale between the existing Category:Jewish American attorneys and my proposed sub-cat of it Category:Jewish American judges (ignoring, I hope, common stereotypes about Jewish lawyers).
Looking at the leads (important, defining characteristics, right?) of some of the articles, other potential missing categories (with examples):
Again, as I write this, the hair on the back of my neck ... but these articles already exist and are identified and categorized – just trying to be consistent with the apparent intent of the existing categories. I added a pointer at WT:WikiProject Judaism#Sub-categorization of American Jews. —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 19:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Guy Van Sam has been described in a 1960 Lebanese newspaper as having a Lebanese mother and an "Indochinese" (Indochinois) father. Now, not only is there no category for French people of Indochinese descent, there are no categories at all of people of "Indochinese" descent, despite French Indochina having been a territorial entity. Is the term "Indochinese" too ambiguous to add a descent category to Van Sam? Nehme 1499 02:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
a defining characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having, per guideline WP:CATDEF. There is therefore no need to add this non-defining characteristic to a category on Van Sam's article, especially since WP:BLPCAT policy applies. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Any general guidance on who belongs in the type of category which lists "XX people of YY descent", such as for example, these:
and when to use them? The use case here is Augusto Pinochet, which includes all three categories but says only this about origins:
He was the son and namesake of Augusto Pinochet Vera (1891–1944), a descendant of an 18th-century French Breton immigrant from Lamballe,[30] and Avelina Ugarte Martínez (1895–1986), a woman whose family had been in Chile since the 17th century.[31][32]
Is an immigrant from the 1700s enough to include Pinochet in the Breton category? What determines if someone is "of YY descent"; do we go back centuries? And what about the fact that both "Breton" and "French" are included, is this an ethnicity/geographic area distinction, so they are both allowed? Otherwise, Brittany is located in France, so maybe only the more specific one should be included?
But besides the specific Pinochet case, I'm interested in what the general guidelines are for specifying a "descent" category; someone born in, say, 1950, with one immigrant ancestor from 1700, is between 8 and 10 generations removed, so possibly only 1/1000 th of the blood of their ancestor. Or is some other factor at play? Mathglot ( talk) 21:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The obvious consideration is whether in the article its suggested that the descent is significant in some way which affects the notability of the person - which it usually isnt. Rathfelder ( talk) 00:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There is some inconsistency with how lists and categories are named for alumni/faculty/people associated to educational institutions. See this discussion. — MarkH21 talk 06:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I have a question regarding a few categories such as Category:Politicians from Cluj-Napoca. The city of Cluj-Napoca has been part of Romania for the past century, but belonged to Austria-Hungary before that.
Some of the people in this category were born in Romania and participated in politics in Romania. Others were born in Austria-Hungary, served as politicians in Hungary and never knew the city would one day join Romania.
Anyway, my question pertains to a user who keeps adding Category:Hungarian politicians. I understand the logic, but I also seem to recall that such situations demand only the present nationality of a place, and cannot account for all past border changes. It’d be like placing Category:Politicians from Galway (city) under Category:British politicians, or Category:Politicians from Kyiv under Category:Soviet politicians.
What do others think? Is this spelled out by any policy? @ Rathfelder: @ Oculi: @ Marcocapelle: — Biruitorul Talk 15:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I propose the creation of categories like Category:Romanian politicians from Cluj-Napoca and Category:Hungarian politicians from Cluj-Napoca. Btw, the same issue exists at Category:Musicians from Cluj-Napoca. 77wonders ( talk) 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I am new here and so expect that this is likely *not* a new discussion, but I couldn't easily find where the existing discussion thread was.
I am participating in the UBC Honouring Indigenous Writers Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon and noticing that there are significant gaps in categories for writing about Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Of course, there are hundreds of Indigenous Nations within Canada, each with their own specific names (and often variant spellings). At minimum, though, it would be fantastic to have categories for the commonly used collective terms "Indigenous Peoples in Canada," "Métis,"and "Inuit." The category "First Nations" already exists and is used in conjunction with a number of other kinds of category descriptors (such as First Nations writer). However, this is inconsistent. For example, there is no category for First Nations author or literary critic.
Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliawrites ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.
See this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Category:Anti-Catholicism_and_Category:Anti-Protestantism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm relatively inexperienced with categories. Looking at Category:Lists of mammals, there are a number of lists about specific locations. For example List of mammals of Newfoundland. Should that be kept here, moved to Category:Lists of mammals by location, or moved to Category:Lists of mammals of North America? Note that the last option is three levels down. In Category:Lists of mammals by location there are a mix of country lists and more specific lists. Additionally, I don't know if all the lists by countries should be categorized into both Category:Lists of mammals by continent and Category:Lists of mammals by location? And then there are also the similar category trees for other groups of animals in Category:Lists of animals by location, so I suppose the organization should be similar. It all seems wrong but I don't know the best practice. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 02:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see Category talk:Faculty by university or college#Request for comment on naming. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Not sure whether this is the right place to bring this up, but hopefully someone here can guide me to the right place if it's not. The talk page templates which are used by WikiProjects for assessing article quality dump pages into thousands of different categories, such as Category:B-Class Foo articles, Category:Start-Class Foo articles etc etc etc. Among this impressive tree are things like Category:Category-Class Foo articles and Category:Template-Class Foo articles. Problem is, these categories aren't for articles. Pages, yes - articles, no. And the same holds true for assessment categories for Book, Redirect, Portal, etc., "articles". I realise that it's an enormous job, but shouldn't all those categories reflect that they are for pages rather than articles? Is some sort of global re-naming required? Grutness... wha? 14:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
|ASSESSMENT_CAT=
parameter in the individual WikiProject banner templates. So, if a banner has |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Foo articles
, category talk pages bearing that banner will be placed in Category-Class Foo articles; but if it has |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Foo pages
, you'll get Category-Class Foo pages. I don't think that it's worth worrying about. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the categorization of drag performers going on at the LGBT WikiProject. It could really benefit from the participation of editors from this project who have a good command of categories. Please add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Categorization of drag performers. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The subcategories of Category:Heirs apparent are mainly populated with people who have become a monarch after they were a heir apparent, i.e. there is a large amount of overlap with the monarchs categories. Only the articles in the top Category:Heirs apparent about people who are current heirs apparent and the subcat Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded are not part of the overlap. Should we add a header in every subcategory "this is meant for heirs apparent who never acceded" or should we rename every subcategory to "... who never acceded"? Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I would be grateful for input from other users at User talk:Rathfelder#People from Foo. Thanks. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 17:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose we add {{ Maintenance category}}, {{ Hidden category}}, {{ Tracking category}}, {{ Category class}} and {{ Template category}} to MediaWiki:Cirrussearch-boost-templates with something like 25% priority. This would cause categories with these templates to display significantly lower, likely below all relevant reader facing categories. It will still be easy to search for the categories, they just won't be the things that are shown to our readers when typing something like "Category:W", "Category:A", "Category:T", "Category:S" or "Category:C" in the search bar. If no one objects I plan on making an edit request for this change in a week or so. -- Trialpears ( talk) 20:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Recently I ran into the situation where, on a page with an unsorted category declaration, an editor added a duplicate category declaration, also adding the correct sorting key. It had no effect. I then needed to remove the unsorted declaration to fix the problem.
Obviously we don't want duplicate categories, but it can and does happen. In such a case, wouldn't it be better if the new sortkey was honored, rather than ignored?
Part of the reason I bring this up, it was recently confirmed to me, for some specific types of sorting problems, it is indeed necessary to add a duplicate category to fix it. -- DB1729 ( talk) 17:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
[[Category:Foo]]
or indirectly, such as by the use of a template) and they have different sort keys (either explicitly, or by using a default), the sortkey of whichever category declaration occurs last overrides all of the others. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been doing some work on categorizing and templating categories. Most of the labels I get, but I can't seem to find a clear explanation of when a category should be considered a tracking category. What are the criteria for tracking category status? Tamwin ( talk) 22:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
Maintenance category}}
) is not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme. When is a maintenance category also a tracking category? When isn't a maintenance category a tracking category? I'm very confused.
Tamwin (
talk) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, need some third-party opinions about a very minor disagreement between me and User:Eurohunter. They have removed a few chart producting companies from the national chart categories, which seems prima facie incorrect (or highly unhelpful), and is made worse because e.g. Ultratop is by this edit completely removed from all charts- or even music-related categories. The same happened with e.g. Dutch Charts [6], the Italian version and the Official Charts Company [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Official_Charts_Company&type=revision&diff=1021427230&oldid=1012843425 (perhaps others as well).
It seems to me that including the company that creates the national charts, in a category for national charts, is a logical, helpful thing, and that the "but it isn't actually a chart" reason is a too literal interpretation of the category: no one will be confused by seeing the chart creating company in the category, but people will be seriously hampered in finding the article if it isn't included in the category. (On an unrelated note, an additional category named something like "record chart creating companies" would probably be a good idea, we now have nothing grouping these clearly related articles across countries). Fram ( talk) 09:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
At present Category:Highwaymen has several sub-categories ( Category:French highwaymen, Category:Irish highwaymen, etc). Individual highwayman articles are assigned to the sub-categories based on the country in which the subject was active, rather than their nationality - for example, Claude Duval, born in France but active in England, is in "English highwaymen" rather than "French highwaymen". I believe that this is potentially confusing, and would suggest one of two possible changes:
Any opinions would be welcome. Tevildo ( talk) 12:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
As there have been no objections, I've recategorized the relevant articles by the nationality of the subject. Tevildo ( talk) 14:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
IP user 50.201.195.170 recently edited Category:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to add the ability to easily search within the category by keyword. While I initially reverted the edit as not necessary for a category page, I think I may have been too hasty. After some discussion with the editor on my talk page, I think the functionality they are trying to add could be useful, especially on a heavily-populated category, and have self-reverted my edit pending further discussion. Is this a tool that should be added on category pages, and if so is there an existing template to add this search functionality? This is the editor's comment from my talk page explaining their reasoning:
Re https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category:Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitors&oldid=1029813923 do you think I'm right about something like that being a good idea to be included/transcluded onto category pages? Much like the "External tools" links are included on page history pages? The syntax is little documented - e.g. no mention of it at /info/en/?search=Help:Category#Searching_for_pages_in_categories. (Feel free to move this comment to a WT: page for further discussion.)
— 50.201.195.170
PohranicniStraze ( talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
deepcat:
is mentioned at
H:DEEPCAT. Yes, I think such a search facility should be present as a search box in every category. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 04:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems that this category contains the subcat Barrel racers when it would seem logical to me for it to be the other way round; otherwise non-American racers would be 'automatically' placed in the parent cat. The barrel racers cat. also seems to have barrel racing as a subcat which again does not look correct to me. Thought best to raise here. Thanks. Eagleash ( talk) 02:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Dawnleelynn: Sorry, but it really is a mess. "American barrel racers" should be a subcategory of "Barrel racers" and not the other way round, and someone categorised as "American barrel racer" should not also be categorised as "barrel racer". The category "barrel racers" should contain the subcategories "American barrel racers", "Canadian barrel racers" etc, and then only any individuals or topics not listed in those categories. Pam D 05:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
replyto}}
, {{
u}}
and {{
user}}
are all satisfactory for this. (ii) and (iii) need not be in the same new line of text as each other.@ Redrose64: Those articles were brought to FA of which she was part of. Secretariat has been in my Watchlist a lot. As far collaboration and consensus I was not talking about on this page but taking off and making changes before the discussion was done. Thanks. dawnleelynn (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a lot of confusion in category names between these two. Islamc scholar is a term which usually refers to Islamic scholars in the traditional sense, see - Ulama. Muslim scholars of Islam may refer to Muslims who have studied Islam as an academic subject in an academic course designed for study by both Muslims and non-Muslims. The category Category:Muslim scholars of Islam by century mostly refers to Ulama. It should be made clear on the category page if it refers to both Islamic scholars and Muslim scholars of Islam. If it refers mostly to Islamic scholars then renaming should be considered and those who are not Islamic scholars should be deleted and placed in a seperate category or a list. The same is true for it's subcategories. There are similar issues with many of the categories which use either of these terms. It is making it very difficult to look up Isamic scholars in the sense of Ulama through category searches and be sure the results are correct and not misleading. The same is true when looking up academic scholars who have studied secular courses. Amirah talk 21:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Z1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
"Z-number templates", like Template:Z1, Template:Z208, or 200 other ones, are a means of tracking use of substed templates. More information about what these templates are for, is available at Template:Z number documentation. The deletion discussion is here. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Discussion launched by Dutchy45 at Category talk:Establishments#Exclude_TV_series_debuts_from_Establishments_in_countryname, which I think has wide ramifications about the scope of (dis)establishment categories.
Editors interested in joining the discussion should post their comments on the category talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Talk:Lincoln, Nebraska#Ukrainian refugees in Lincoln about the addition of Category:Ukrainian communities in the United States to a city where 0.09 percent of the city's population is Ukrainian. Your input would be appreciated. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Possibly empty category § Hiding this template when unneeded. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
You're invited to join this discussion too.— S Marshall T/ C 19:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
rough translation}}
was recently changed to categorize by date in addition to county. There are hundreds of articles now in
Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template because the cats "Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation from MONTH YEAR" don't exist. I don't do much with cats. Do these need to be created manually? I made
Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation from January 2021 but aren't sure I did it correctly (and maybe not the best way).
MB 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I have added Kate Baker to Category:20th-century Australian women. At the risk of getting a lot of hate, can someone please review to check if this is correct? - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 15:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:State government in Nigeria is a mess. It must be made more consistent. I can fix it if you just answer these two quick questions.
First question: In which categories should the articles for an individual state government be placed? Ex: Government of Lagos State.
Second question: In which categories should the category for the state government be placed? Ex: Category:Government of Lagos State.
Thank you. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 05:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's particularly clear what the category Category:Ethnic humour is intended to be categorising. Some of the pages which appear under this category are clearly about comedy that emerges from particular cultures, such as the article Australian comedy or Jewish humor, while others seem to be about racist "comedy", such as the article Blackface or Examples of yellowface. While these articles do share some tangential similarities in subject matter, I can't help but question whether this broadness violates WP:NPOV; it wouldn't be hard to imagine someone seeing the articles Racial brownface and Indonesian comedy in the same category and coming away with a negative impression of Indonesian culture. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 10:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed this category move on my watchlist, which (I believe correctly) changed "female" to "women". However other closely related categories were not also moved to refer to gender instead of sex. Could a bot be tasked to systematically fix such errors in category titles? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, This is to notify the Wikiproject about Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 12. Here's an example edit Special:Diff/1045097487 Ladsgroup overleg 12:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I hope it's the right place to talk about this.
Akandkur ( talk · contribs) is currently removing articles from Category:Music memes and Category:Internet memes based on personal opinion rather than sources.
Some examples: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
What do you think?
Pinging Rodney Araujo who added the categories on some articles. -- Thibaut ( talk) 00:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Advice seems to indicate that categories like Category:Irish male actors and Category:Irish actresses should not be diffusing with Category:Irish actors but they are. Can anyone help me understand this? Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
After multiple WP:CfD nominations produced contradictory results, I've set up a Request for Comment here to try and determine which naming convention should be used for the subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection. Should it be (A) Paintings in [a museum, etc.] or (B) Paintings in the collection of [a museum, etc.]? Resolution is sorely needed so that names elsewhere in the category tree can be cleaned up, so please contribute! Ham II ( talk) 08:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
So I know we have {{ container category}} and {{ cat diffuse}} for when a category should have no articles, or very few articles, respectively, but is there a template for the opposite case, where a category should contain only articles? For instance, all of the "XXXX births" categories should contain only articles, and while I think that is common knowledge and so don't think such a template would be needed on those, is there a template to use on only-article categories where that is less commonly known? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
See List_of_scientific_skeptics A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
See this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Just checking When I go Edit-> Category and them go to add a category. If I enter Say Wikipedia Victoria, then it doesn't show Wikipedia in Victoria, but asks me to create a category Am I doing it right?? Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, folks,
Every year, we have lots of editors eager to create the next year's annual categories and we will soon see a lot of empty 2022 categories on the empty category list, especially towards the end of December. I'm already running into premature "X in 2022" articles in main space and I expect to see this happen with categories in coming weeks.
Even though we deal with this every autumn/winter, I don't recall if there are specific guidelines about creating these annual categories early and I don't see anything about this in my very quick scan of the categorization pages. If the categories are empty, they can just be tagged CSD C1 but any other advice on whether categories prematurely created and filled with a few pages should be emptied and turned into temporary redirects until the year is actually underway? I don't think it would be useful to clog up CFD with deletion nominations for categories that might well need to be recreated once we hit January. I don't expect this to be an issue until December but I thought I'd ask before it becomes a problem. Many thanks, in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page for Category:Mass shootings in the United States about whether the {{ all included}} banner should appear on the page. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion there. Thank you. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
It's a page that few people watch, so more eyes invited: Category talk:Expatriates#RfC: Proposal to change the definition of "expatriate" for the purposes of categorization Herostratus ( talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of the categories related to WikiProject Gender studies do not match the project name. The word "studies" should not be capitalized.
Here's a list of the categories that need to be moved/renamed:
Then, to repopulate the right categories, correct the word "studies" in the project template and the userbox. I'll manually check every entry. Thanks in advance, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 07:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Non-diffused category checker. All comments welcome. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I recently attempted to add {{ they do}} to Category:Editor's pronouns templates, but for some reason the Category page wouldn't show up {{ they do}}, while every other page showed up including those which were added to the category after I added {{ they do}}. What happened here? --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 10:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there such a tag? For example for a category that is categorised under what should be its own subcategories. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
[[Category:Disasters in Ontario]]
[[Category:Great Lakes ships|Great Lakes]]
[[Category:Shipwrecks in lakes|Great Lakes]]
[[Category:Shipwrecks of New York (state)]]
[[Category:Shipwrecks of the United States|Great Lakes]]
[[Category:Shipwrecks of Canada|Great Lakes]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Illinois]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Indiana]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Michigan]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Minnesota]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Ohio]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Wisconsin]]
[[Category:Water transport in Ontario]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Illinois]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Indiana]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Michigan]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Minnesota]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Ohio]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Wisconsin]]
Category:Great Lakes ships and
Category:Shipwrecks in lakes
to be valid. all the others apply to only some of the articles in the category, and probably a different subset for each, so somewhat labour intensive. I am reasonably confident I can fix this all, but not quickly, and all purely manually. I am used to doing category work on an ad hoc basis, not normally such a large batch with so much to fix. Is there a semi automated way to do it? Cheers, · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 07:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a semi automated way to do it?Wikipedia:Cat-a-lot? ― Qwerfjkl talk 12:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with Rathfelder. The subcategory "New Zealand women academics" states at the top of the page that the articles in this subcategory can also appear in the parent category i.e. in "NZ academics". Rathfelder has removed articles on women academics from the category "NZ academics". I don't think this is correct. Any thoughts appreciated. MurielMary ( talk) 11:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I found myself in a dispute with @ Rathfelder: on the P. J. Rhodes article. They removed "Category:English academics" from the article on the grounds that it is covered by "Category:Classical scholars of the University of Durham". That category is indeed in the hierarchy - "Academics of Durham University" --> "Category:Academics by university or college in England" --> "Category:English academics". But why is it? "Category:English academics" describes itself as "This category is about Academics from England" and is part of the "Category:English people" tree (i.e. a nationality tree). It is perfectly conceivable that someone might be an academic based at an English University without being an "English person", so it seems strange to me that "Academics by university of college in England" is included in the "English people" tree. Furius ( talk) 01:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Academics who are American citizens or of any nationality who are or have been based in the United States., though there is nothing equivalent at Category:British academics or Category:New Zealand academics. Category:Moroccan academics has a note saying "
This category is for articles about academics from the African country of Morocco." created using a template, and Category:Indian academics defines "Academic" but not "Indian". In short, we have the usual inconsistency. Perhaps it needs some consideration. Pam D 12:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Template:Improve categories. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 01:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:Cats2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 03:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I usually add biographies to a "People from <city of birth>" category. Category:People from Gibraltar was merged with Category:Gibraltarians in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_7#Category:People_from_Gibraltar (@ Rathfelder: as nominator). So I'm a bit stuck with what to do with René Neuville, the son of a French diplomat who was born and raised in Gibraltar but never described as "Gibraltarian" in terms of ethnicity or nationality. Is the existence of an "edge case" like Neuville enough to recreate the category? Or should I just leave the article out of that category tree? – Joe ( talk) 11:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion about the tree of Category:Cafés, see WikiProject Food and Drink talk page. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I often work on and often find new pages with colons at the start of otherwise perfectly good links to categories eg Dwarka Courts Complex: Revision as of 00:57, 15 February 2022 (edit)
Category:South West Delhi district Category:Courthouses in India
This leads to a minor adjustment removing the colon, and the category displays correctly. It seems that the colon is being introduced somewhere in a new page template somewhere, and if it could be removed it would save much time and effort having to remove it again. It would be great if someone could help with this. Many thanks, Berek ( talk) 10:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Draft categories|...}}instead? DB1729 ( talk) 17:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
[13] Why is there so much variance in the number of items in this category? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I make a lot of category sorting edits, adding and modifying sorting keys. Occasionally I am questioned ( ex1, ex2) or reverted [14] [15] [16] by well-intentioned, even experienced editors, who have mistaken category sortkey syntax for piped link syntax. This is understandable and not surprising. The two functions happen to use the same markup, the pipe "|" character being the main culprit in the confusion.
I have identified three areas that are either exacerbating the problem or could be improved to help the situation:
[[:Category:Topic]]
. That's fine, but the problem with this method is when there is a sortkey added. The leading colon effectively converts the category declaration into a piped-link, and the resulting display only shows the sorting key, which looks odd and confusing. For example, a draft titled
Draft:List of amphibians of Argentina, we would expect it to contain the following category with the Argentina sortkey, but [[:Category:Lists of amphibians by country|Argentina]]
merely produces
Argentina, which would appear at the bottom of the page where the categories are located. It would not be unreasonable for an editor, especially a newer one noticing this odd behavior, to assume "|" is part of a piped link and remove it thinking it will cause the same behavior in mainspace after the suppression is lifted. They might even challenge others who try to add them after the page goes live. Note the other, less-used suppression method {{
Draft categories}} performs far better. It displays the category link as intended and as it would appear in a live article. In fact, it also provides a brief explanation in a box, which is nice.{{Draft categories|Category:Lists of amphibians by country|Argentina}}
produces: I have no idea how feasible some of this is or if posting it here will help at all, but any thoughts on all or any part of it is appreciated. DB1729 ( talk) 21:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines or criteria for making tracking maintenance categories? I found how-to instructions but I did not find any should-you-actually-be-doing-this guidelines. This is about the tracking categories, which are usually of the form Category:Articles with X
where X is some sort of problem to be fixed. Should there be any discussion or consensus that X is a problem before creating a tracking category for it? It seems obvious, but I didn't see it detailed anywhere. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 21:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Lists of ambassadors categorization. -- DB1729 ( talk) 03:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I just created my first category, Category:Ballpoint pen art. Feel free to tell me if I did anything wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, i was trying to create new categories, I have already red the
guidelines but i didn't quite grasp it fully, for example how to make a tree of categories, i use {{
CatAutoTOC}}
and leave it to work its magic (and i double check for results). Would you mind to take a look at my attempts
see here,
here,
and here and share any suggestion on how to do it better? Some advices would be helpful. Cheers. --
Opencross (
talk) 15:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Year_categories_for_upcoming_products having run into some pushback on removing categories such as Category:2023 films on upcoming films at Category talk:2023 films and I couldn't find any official guidance on the matter - thoughts welcome. Le Deluge ( talk) 17:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
If I know a specific article "X" is within a subcat (at arbitrary depth) of a specific cat "Cat:Y", is there a way to trace the cat hierarchy ("Cat:Y contains Cat:A, which contains Cat:B, which contains X")? My specific use-case is that PETSCAN is giving unexpected pages when I request a cat-tree, and I'm trying to figure out which intermediate cat is mis-categorized. DMacks ( talk) 17:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I opened a discussion in MOS:TV about the deletion of 13 categories from a TV series. The series is well-known for its inclusion of LGBT characters and topics -- yet LGBT categories were deleted. Prior to this, 15 categories (including LGBT-related) were deleted from a film whose main character is a lesbian teenager and the plot revolves around her. I discovered these deletions because the articles are on my watchlist ... but how many other articles are experiencing the careless deletion of categories with the HotCat gadget? The discussion in MOS:TV is here. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Cause of death for most people is not a defining characteristic. Should cause of death be a category to add to every possible Wikipedia biography? Cause of death is not mentioned in WP:PEOPLECAT and would seem to fail WP:CATDEF? Hundreds of biographies are now having death-related categories added. For example, Category:Stroke-related deaths in Arizona was just added to Lillian Moller Gilbreth. She was noted for several things, but what she died from at age 93 isn't one of them. Why is it diffused by state? She lived in Arizona with her daughter only after she became too frail to live alone in New Jersey. Wikipedia category pages aren't the place to build up such public health data by state. That is what Wikidata is for, where one can query "people who died of stroke in Arizona", "engineers who died of stroke", "women engineers who died of stroke" and any other combination that might be of interest for some purpose. StarryGrandma ( talk) 15:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability. MB 22:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Template:Expand language, has an RFC which is within the scope of this WikiProject, for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -- N8wilson 21:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Informed opinion sought. Subject came out this week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:49, 10 June 2022 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I think it's time to revive an idea that I floated before: creating {{ Category redirect}}s to resolve the WP:ENGVAR variations in category names using the word "organisation(s)" or "organization(s)".
This is an application to category-space of the principle set out at MOS:COMMONALITY:
If one variant spelling appears in a title, make a redirect page to accommodate the others, as with artefact and artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and linking.
Over 15,000 categories contains the word "[Oo]rgani[SZ]ation(s)". Some are proper names, such as Category:International Labour Organization (more such categories can be found under Category:Wikipedia categories named after organizations.)
However the overwhelmingly majority of these categories are descriptive titles created by Wikipedia editors per WP:NDESC. See e.g. Category:Scientific organizations and its many subcats, or Category:Organizations by date of establishment plus its subcats.
The choice between the Z-spelling and the S-spelling is largely random. In categories which relate to a specific country, then where that country has particular ties to one spelling, the category can be renamed to that country's preferred usage. But this leaves two large sets of categories where the choice is essentially random, defaulting to the choice by the editor who created it:
That leaves the overwhelming majority of such categories with a basically random choice between S- and Z- spellings.
The unpredictability of spelling is a nuisance for both readers and editors, who have no means of determining which spelling to use.
Back in 2017, I proposed using BHGbot to create category redirects from one spelling to the other. However, the discussion at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 3 seemed to run into the sands, so I abandoned the idea.
Then in April 2019, I tried another approach: an RFC to set aside ENGVAR for all Wikipedia categories which use the word "organisation"/"organization" as part of a descriptive name per WP:NDESC, and standardize them to use the "Z" spelling, i.e. "organization" rather than "organisation". See WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC:_spelling_of_"organisation"/"organization"_in_descriptive_category_names.
That discussion turned into a huge procedural trainwreck, with votestacking, multiple closes, and at least one close reviewed at WP:AN. It was finally closed as "no consensus" after more than five months ... and although the closer specifically said "no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination", I have no appetite for going there again. There are I many things I could say about conduct in that RFC, but they wouldn't help. The fact is that the community doesn't seem able to discuss that idea in a way which might lead to a consensus. I still think that for metadata such as categories, standardisation of this minor variation of spelling would be good thing, but I accept that it's not gonna happen.
So that brings me back to the idea of category redirects. Having reviewed the 2017 BRFA discussion, it seems to be that I had screwed up by not having a prior discussion before opening a BRFA ... but that at BRFA, all concerns had been satisfied, with one exception: false positives.
I have looked at this from as many angles as I can find, and I can only think of one type of situation where such a redirect may inappropriate:
This situation seems to me to be so rare that it probably doesn't exist at all. If there is significant concern about this, I could screen for such cases by adding another layer of list-comparison to my checks, but I don't think that it is needed.
If there is consensus here, I propose to open a new BRFA. Using new tools which give me a list of all existing categories, I propose to use BHGbot to create these spelling-variation redirects to all categories which include the whole word "[Oo]rgani[sz]ation(s)". That would include proper names, and project categories as well as content categories.
The methodology is:
{{Category redirect|Anti-Foobar organizations|bot=BHGbot}}
Yesterday, I did a trial run of list-making, which gave me a list of 12,639 {{ category redirect}}s to create. If the bot is approved, I will rebuild the list so that it's up-to-date.
Please give your feedback on either the principle or the methodology, or both.
That's why I propose creating category redirects. Sadly, I don't see any sign that you read the proposal before replying. Please will you take the time to read it now?The unpredictability of spelling is a nuisance for both readers and editors, who have no means of determining which spelling to use
This proposal just applies that long-established principle consistently to this corner of category space; it's already used in about 3,000 such categories, so this is just using a bot to finish the job.If one variant spelling appears in a title, make a redirect page to accommodate the others, as with artefact and artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and linking.
Pick whatever'cos
no doubt one will be along shortly to 'correct' itis flawed in three respects:
satisfy[ing] some editors preference for one spelling to display over another. On the contrary, the whole pint of it is that it will not change the spelling which is displayed on any unredirected page. It's about making the spelling a non-issue by making either variant usable ... and the fact that you make that allegation is evidence that you don't understand what is proposed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
circumvent a widely accepted MOS guidelineas you wrongly asserted in your first comment, it's actually an attempt to apply the MOS. Your choice not to read the linked and quoted part of the MOS is not a flaw in my explanation.
makework, you clearly have no interest in ensuring that articles are accurately categorised as editors intend. That's a choice which you are quite entitled to make ... but it's no basis for opposing the work of those editors who do try make categorisation work. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
{{Category redirect|Anti-Foobar organizations|bot=BHGbot}}
--
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 12:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)The bot authorisation request BHGbot 7 was approved yesterday for a trial run of 50 edits.
That trial run has been completed, and is awaiting review: see WP:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot_7#Discussion, which includes full details of the trial. Any editors who want to offer feedback on the trial can do so at that page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 7 has been approved. [5] Many thanks to those who offered their feedback here.
I am now making the lists for the bot's first run. Some of the 3 quarry jobs taken 5–12 hours, so the list-making may not be complete until tomorrow. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:BHGbot 7's first run is underway. 12,420 redirect pages to create: see User:BHGbot/7/List 1.
The edits can be tracked at Special:Contributions/BHGbot. Since this is a non-urgent task, the bot is working slowly, currently at a little over 4 edits per minute. At this rate, the task will take about a week to complete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Folks here might be interested in chiming in at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 32#Killing cats. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 14:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Category:Roman Catholic prayers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Manabimasu ( talk) 01:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This user's edits keep showing up in my watchlist; I'm not enough of a subject matter expert to determine whether or not they are appropriate, but I'm concerned by the sweeping changes being made. Would appreciate if someone more involved with categories could review. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:SDZeroBot/Category cycles. — andrybak ( talk) 18:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI, I have filed a BRFA for a manually-operated bot to add {{ set category}} template to categories that are WP:SETCATs. – SD0001 ( talk) 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed this recently-created template (I believe it was translated from the Turkish Wikipedia) intended to automatically populate the headers of categories. Is this useful, or does it duplicate pre-existing templates? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Autocat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This is due to unavoidable consequences of a software update - "The sorting of some category pages will be distorted – all pages which have been updated with the new software version will use the new sorting while untouched pages still use the old sorting. As such, Ops need to run a maintenance script to update the sorting for old entries. The distortions may last [...] a few days on English Wikipedia. The start-time will depend upon when the migration script reaches each wiki."
For the original announcement, a bit more detail and any updates see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Update to ICU Unicode library. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently the note at Category:Industry says
pointing to the DAB industry (for the reasons of this being a DAB see Talk:Industry (economics)). This makes it unclear which content/meaning the category should have:
There was an old proposal to give the category the second meaning: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 20#Category:Industry, which was closed as No consensus mainly on technical reasons as far as I understand it.
The current content of the category is more in line with the first meaning. In particular the sub-category Category:Industries clearly has the first meaning (e.g. it includes the Category:Service industries which matches/belongs to the Tertiary sector of the economy). This sub-category relationship would therefore be wrong if the category got the second meaning.
So how to clean this up? -- S.K. ( talk) 02:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Harvard University § Some substantial category cleanup needed. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I just happened upon the contributions of 169.1.11.199 (ping: @ 169.1.11.199:) who in the last few days has been busy with what I suspect is redundant categorization of South African taxa. Random examples: Arthroleptella rugosa, Cape platanna, sentinel rock thrush. Going off the first example, it seems to me that there is redundancy in "Endemic amphibians of South Africa", "Category:Fauna of South Africa", and "Endemic fauna of South Africa". Could someone advise as to whether a single one of these would do the job instead? I suspect that previously present "Endemic amphibians of South Africa", as being most specific, is actually all we want?
(I don't look foward to cleaning up 300 articles, so if there is an issue here, I'd apply for a mass rollback.) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
After closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_29#Category:Chefs_who_committed_suicide, what is the best way to proceed? Nominating subcategories of Category:Suicides by occupation one by one will lead to a lot of repetition and hence, probably, low participation in the discussions. While nominating a lot of them simultaneously may end as a trainwreck. Is there some smart middle way? Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Please see:
Template talk:R to project namespace#RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are a significant number of categories which get tagged with {{ Monthly clean up category}} and added to their monthly page in Category:Clean-up categories even though they are not cleanup categories. For example, Category:EngvarB from April 2014. There's no backlog and nothing that needs to be cleaned up here.
These should probably be tagged with a new template such as {{ Monthly tracking category}} - and added to a category like Category:Tracking categories from April 2014 - of which Category:Clean-up categories from April 2014 would also be a subcategory in. As-is, the current system makes it look like non-issues are serious backlogs and vastly overestimates the (still large) amount of work that needs to be done. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 10:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: also posted to the WikiProject Cleanup talkpage. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 10:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
hi, cat editors recently changed the above cat from "Fiction about the moon" to the above ( the discussion is here), i had a quick look at the reason ie. "most appear to be set on the moon/in space" yes most but not all! so now how can articles about, for example, books that are not set on the moon but where the moon is key/substantial to the story be categorized? also JJMC89 bot III has done a mass move to this new/renamed cat(?), who is going to "fix" the articles for which this category is now incorrect? thanks, Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following categories should, in my opinion, be replaced with their plain English equivalents:
The English titles are way more informative. Someone who doesn't know the Italian art of this period won't have to guess what Seicento means. It's worth noting that not even the Italian Wikipedia uses this rather cryptic convention: it:Categoria:Compositori italiani — capmo ( talk) 15:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I am thinking of creating a new category on the English Wikipedia that bundles up all the articles that deal with topics in developing countries. To do that, I searched up articles that have "developing countries" or similar in their title. I searched for an existing category that bundles them together but couldn't find one. Does it already exist? I am aware of the category "international development" but I don't think it quite captures what I am after ( /info/en/?search=Category:International_development). I am thinking of a category called "Topics about developing countries" or similar? Here are the articles that I found so far which I would put into that category:
Your opinions are welcome at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to remove year of birth/death categories when the claim is removed from the article body. — The Earwig ⟨ talk⟩ 16:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This may be of interest to the Special:WantedCategories crew and anyone who creates a lot of categories with a year in the name. If you put {{
Copycat}} into the edit window of a year category and preview it, it will scan for the last three years of sibling categories and if it finds one, copy the contents to the preview window. From where it can easily be copy and pasted into the edit window. And combine that with a preload to make an URL and a link in my vector.js
, and creating year categories now takes a single click in my sidebar and a copy-and-paste. The code's a mess, there's not much error-correction and it would be nice to add decades, seasons, centuries etc - it was really just a proof of principle. But it works surprisingly well, and really speeds up making those categories that can use it. It feels like it ought to be possible to get the content into the edit window somehow, using double substitutions or sending the name as a parameter to the preload or something, but I haven't been able to figure it out. Whilst I'm here, another little thing I've made for the SWCers is {{
Category User iso-n}} which is a parameterless way to create user language subcategories like
Category:User awa-1 etc.
Le Deluge (
talk) 22:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:American Jews says articles should be moved down into its sub-categories, but apparently has ~2800 articles in it (directly).
The first article I looked at, Charles L. Aarons, is for a judge, so I looked under Category:American Jews by occupation for Category:Jewish American judges or Category:Jewish American jurists, which don't exist. I'm considering creating the former (maybe as a sub-cat of Category:Jewish American attorneys?) and moving that article and others (including Ruth Bader Ginsburg) to it.
Am I on the right track?
As far as how to do it, I'm thinking using Petscan or the like to find the intersections and then HotCat to move them, if that's possible.
(For those whose hair on the back of their neck just stood up, I feel you – lists like this have been problematic over our history. This is not that. Just trying to diffuse an existing category.) —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 19:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
field in which Jewishness was definingin relation to the existing Category:American Jews by occupation sub-cats. Or are some of those OSE? In theory, I don't see how most of the sub-cats of Category:American Jews by occupation exist because the subject article
should be treated or considered differently. Perhaps more specifically, what would be the difference in rationale between the existing Category:Jewish American attorneys and my proposed sub-cat of it Category:Jewish American judges (ignoring, I hope, common stereotypes about Jewish lawyers).
Looking at the leads (important, defining characteristics, right?) of some of the articles, other potential missing categories (with examples):
Again, as I write this, the hair on the back of my neck ... but these articles already exist and are identified and categorized – just trying to be consistent with the apparent intent of the existing categories. I added a pointer at WT:WikiProject Judaism#Sub-categorization of American Jews. —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 19:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Guy Van Sam has been described in a 1960 Lebanese newspaper as having a Lebanese mother and an "Indochinese" (Indochinois) father. Now, not only is there no category for French people of Indochinese descent, there are no categories at all of people of "Indochinese" descent, despite French Indochina having been a territorial entity. Is the term "Indochinese" too ambiguous to add a descent category to Van Sam? Nehme 1499 02:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
a defining characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having, per guideline WP:CATDEF. There is therefore no need to add this non-defining characteristic to a category on Van Sam's article, especially since WP:BLPCAT policy applies. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Any general guidance on who belongs in the type of category which lists "XX people of YY descent", such as for example, these:
and when to use them? The use case here is Augusto Pinochet, which includes all three categories but says only this about origins:
He was the son and namesake of Augusto Pinochet Vera (1891–1944), a descendant of an 18th-century French Breton immigrant from Lamballe,[30] and Avelina Ugarte Martínez (1895–1986), a woman whose family had been in Chile since the 17th century.[31][32]
Is an immigrant from the 1700s enough to include Pinochet in the Breton category? What determines if someone is "of YY descent"; do we go back centuries? And what about the fact that both "Breton" and "French" are included, is this an ethnicity/geographic area distinction, so they are both allowed? Otherwise, Brittany is located in France, so maybe only the more specific one should be included?
But besides the specific Pinochet case, I'm interested in what the general guidelines are for specifying a "descent" category; someone born in, say, 1950, with one immigrant ancestor from 1700, is between 8 and 10 generations removed, so possibly only 1/1000 th of the blood of their ancestor. Or is some other factor at play? Mathglot ( talk) 21:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The obvious consideration is whether in the article its suggested that the descent is significant in some way which affects the notability of the person - which it usually isnt. Rathfelder ( talk) 00:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There is some inconsistency with how lists and categories are named for alumni/faculty/people associated to educational institutions. See this discussion. — MarkH21 talk 06:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I have a question regarding a few categories such as Category:Politicians from Cluj-Napoca. The city of Cluj-Napoca has been part of Romania for the past century, but belonged to Austria-Hungary before that.
Some of the people in this category were born in Romania and participated in politics in Romania. Others were born in Austria-Hungary, served as politicians in Hungary and never knew the city would one day join Romania.
Anyway, my question pertains to a user who keeps adding Category:Hungarian politicians. I understand the logic, but I also seem to recall that such situations demand only the present nationality of a place, and cannot account for all past border changes. It’d be like placing Category:Politicians from Galway (city) under Category:British politicians, or Category:Politicians from Kyiv under Category:Soviet politicians.
What do others think? Is this spelled out by any policy? @ Rathfelder: @ Oculi: @ Marcocapelle: — Biruitorul Talk 15:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I propose the creation of categories like Category:Romanian politicians from Cluj-Napoca and Category:Hungarian politicians from Cluj-Napoca. Btw, the same issue exists at Category:Musicians from Cluj-Napoca. 77wonders ( talk) 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I am new here and so expect that this is likely *not* a new discussion, but I couldn't easily find where the existing discussion thread was.
I am participating in the UBC Honouring Indigenous Writers Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon and noticing that there are significant gaps in categories for writing about Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Of course, there are hundreds of Indigenous Nations within Canada, each with their own specific names (and often variant spellings). At minimum, though, it would be fantastic to have categories for the commonly used collective terms "Indigenous Peoples in Canada," "Métis,"and "Inuit." The category "First Nations" already exists and is used in conjunction with a number of other kinds of category descriptors (such as First Nations writer). However, this is inconsistent. For example, there is no category for First Nations author or literary critic.
Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliawrites ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.
See this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Category:Anti-Catholicism_and_Category:Anti-Protestantism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm relatively inexperienced with categories. Looking at Category:Lists of mammals, there are a number of lists about specific locations. For example List of mammals of Newfoundland. Should that be kept here, moved to Category:Lists of mammals by location, or moved to Category:Lists of mammals of North America? Note that the last option is three levels down. In Category:Lists of mammals by location there are a mix of country lists and more specific lists. Additionally, I don't know if all the lists by countries should be categorized into both Category:Lists of mammals by continent and Category:Lists of mammals by location? And then there are also the similar category trees for other groups of animals in Category:Lists of animals by location, so I suppose the organization should be similar. It all seems wrong but I don't know the best practice. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 02:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see Category talk:Faculty by university or college#Request for comment on naming. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Not sure whether this is the right place to bring this up, but hopefully someone here can guide me to the right place if it's not. The talk page templates which are used by WikiProjects for assessing article quality dump pages into thousands of different categories, such as Category:B-Class Foo articles, Category:Start-Class Foo articles etc etc etc. Among this impressive tree are things like Category:Category-Class Foo articles and Category:Template-Class Foo articles. Problem is, these categories aren't for articles. Pages, yes - articles, no. And the same holds true for assessment categories for Book, Redirect, Portal, etc., "articles". I realise that it's an enormous job, but shouldn't all those categories reflect that they are for pages rather than articles? Is some sort of global re-naming required? Grutness... wha? 14:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
|ASSESSMENT_CAT=
parameter in the individual WikiProject banner templates. So, if a banner has |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Foo articles
, category talk pages bearing that banner will be placed in Category-Class Foo articles; but if it has |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Foo pages
, you'll get Category-Class Foo pages. I don't think that it's worth worrying about. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the categorization of drag performers going on at the LGBT WikiProject. It could really benefit from the participation of editors from this project who have a good command of categories. Please add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Categorization of drag performers. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The subcategories of Category:Heirs apparent are mainly populated with people who have become a monarch after they were a heir apparent, i.e. there is a large amount of overlap with the monarchs categories. Only the articles in the top Category:Heirs apparent about people who are current heirs apparent and the subcat Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded are not part of the overlap. Should we add a header in every subcategory "this is meant for heirs apparent who never acceded" or should we rename every subcategory to "... who never acceded"? Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I would be grateful for input from other users at User talk:Rathfelder#People from Foo. Thanks. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 17:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose we add {{ Maintenance category}}, {{ Hidden category}}, {{ Tracking category}}, {{ Category class}} and {{ Template category}} to MediaWiki:Cirrussearch-boost-templates with something like 25% priority. This would cause categories with these templates to display significantly lower, likely below all relevant reader facing categories. It will still be easy to search for the categories, they just won't be the things that are shown to our readers when typing something like "Category:W", "Category:A", "Category:T", "Category:S" or "Category:C" in the search bar. If no one objects I plan on making an edit request for this change in a week or so. -- Trialpears ( talk) 20:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Recently I ran into the situation where, on a page with an unsorted category declaration, an editor added a duplicate category declaration, also adding the correct sorting key. It had no effect. I then needed to remove the unsorted declaration to fix the problem.
Obviously we don't want duplicate categories, but it can and does happen. In such a case, wouldn't it be better if the new sortkey was honored, rather than ignored?
Part of the reason I bring this up, it was recently confirmed to me, for some specific types of sorting problems, it is indeed necessary to add a duplicate category to fix it. -- DB1729 ( talk) 17:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
[[Category:Foo]]
or indirectly, such as by the use of a template) and they have different sort keys (either explicitly, or by using a default), the sortkey of whichever category declaration occurs last overrides all of the others. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been doing some work on categorizing and templating categories. Most of the labels I get, but I can't seem to find a clear explanation of when a category should be considered a tracking category. What are the criteria for tracking category status? Tamwin ( talk) 22:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
Maintenance category}}
) is not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme. When is a maintenance category also a tracking category? When isn't a maintenance category a tracking category? I'm very confused.
Tamwin (
talk) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, need some third-party opinions about a very minor disagreement between me and User:Eurohunter. They have removed a few chart producting companies from the national chart categories, which seems prima facie incorrect (or highly unhelpful), and is made worse because e.g. Ultratop is by this edit completely removed from all charts- or even music-related categories. The same happened with e.g. Dutch Charts [6], the Italian version and the Official Charts Company [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Official_Charts_Company&type=revision&diff=1021427230&oldid=1012843425 (perhaps others as well).
It seems to me that including the company that creates the national charts, in a category for national charts, is a logical, helpful thing, and that the "but it isn't actually a chart" reason is a too literal interpretation of the category: no one will be confused by seeing the chart creating company in the category, but people will be seriously hampered in finding the article if it isn't included in the category. (On an unrelated note, an additional category named something like "record chart creating companies" would probably be a good idea, we now have nothing grouping these clearly related articles across countries). Fram ( talk) 09:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
At present Category:Highwaymen has several sub-categories ( Category:French highwaymen, Category:Irish highwaymen, etc). Individual highwayman articles are assigned to the sub-categories based on the country in which the subject was active, rather than their nationality - for example, Claude Duval, born in France but active in England, is in "English highwaymen" rather than "French highwaymen". I believe that this is potentially confusing, and would suggest one of two possible changes:
Any opinions would be welcome. Tevildo ( talk) 12:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
As there have been no objections, I've recategorized the relevant articles by the nationality of the subject. Tevildo ( talk) 14:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
IP user 50.201.195.170 recently edited Category:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to add the ability to easily search within the category by keyword. While I initially reverted the edit as not necessary for a category page, I think I may have been too hasty. After some discussion with the editor on my talk page, I think the functionality they are trying to add could be useful, especially on a heavily-populated category, and have self-reverted my edit pending further discussion. Is this a tool that should be added on category pages, and if so is there an existing template to add this search functionality? This is the editor's comment from my talk page explaining their reasoning:
Re https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category:Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitors&oldid=1029813923 do you think I'm right about something like that being a good idea to be included/transcluded onto category pages? Much like the "External tools" links are included on page history pages? The syntax is little documented - e.g. no mention of it at /info/en/?search=Help:Category#Searching_for_pages_in_categories. (Feel free to move this comment to a WT: page for further discussion.)
— 50.201.195.170
PohranicniStraze ( talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
deepcat:
is mentioned at
H:DEEPCAT. Yes, I think such a search facility should be present as a search box in every category. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 04:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems that this category contains the subcat Barrel racers when it would seem logical to me for it to be the other way round; otherwise non-American racers would be 'automatically' placed in the parent cat. The barrel racers cat. also seems to have barrel racing as a subcat which again does not look correct to me. Thought best to raise here. Thanks. Eagleash ( talk) 02:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Dawnleelynn: Sorry, but it really is a mess. "American barrel racers" should be a subcategory of "Barrel racers" and not the other way round, and someone categorised as "American barrel racer" should not also be categorised as "barrel racer". The category "barrel racers" should contain the subcategories "American barrel racers", "Canadian barrel racers" etc, and then only any individuals or topics not listed in those categories. Pam D 05:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
replyto}}
, {{
u}}
and {{
user}}
are all satisfactory for this. (ii) and (iii) need not be in the same new line of text as each other.@ Redrose64: Those articles were brought to FA of which she was part of. Secretariat has been in my Watchlist a lot. As far collaboration and consensus I was not talking about on this page but taking off and making changes before the discussion was done. Thanks. dawnleelynn (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a lot of confusion in category names between these two. Islamc scholar is a term which usually refers to Islamic scholars in the traditional sense, see - Ulama. Muslim scholars of Islam may refer to Muslims who have studied Islam as an academic subject in an academic course designed for study by both Muslims and non-Muslims. The category Category:Muslim scholars of Islam by century mostly refers to Ulama. It should be made clear on the category page if it refers to both Islamic scholars and Muslim scholars of Islam. If it refers mostly to Islamic scholars then renaming should be considered and those who are not Islamic scholars should be deleted and placed in a seperate category or a list. The same is true for it's subcategories. There are similar issues with many of the categories which use either of these terms. It is making it very difficult to look up Isamic scholars in the sense of Ulama through category searches and be sure the results are correct and not misleading. The same is true when looking up academic scholars who have studied secular courses. Amirah talk 21:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Z1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
"Z-number templates", like Template:Z1, Template:Z208, or 200 other ones, are a means of tracking use of substed templates. More information about what these templates are for, is available at Template:Z number documentation. The deletion discussion is here. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Discussion launched by Dutchy45 at Category talk:Establishments#Exclude_TV_series_debuts_from_Establishments_in_countryname, which I think has wide ramifications about the scope of (dis)establishment categories.
Editors interested in joining the discussion should post their comments on the category talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Talk:Lincoln, Nebraska#Ukrainian refugees in Lincoln about the addition of Category:Ukrainian communities in the United States to a city where 0.09 percent of the city's population is Ukrainian. Your input would be appreciated. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Possibly empty category § Hiding this template when unneeded. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
You're invited to join this discussion too.— S Marshall T/ C 19:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
rough translation}}
was recently changed to categorize by date in addition to county. There are hundreds of articles now in
Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template because the cats "Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation from MONTH YEAR" don't exist. I don't do much with cats. Do these need to be created manually? I made
Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation from January 2021 but aren't sure I did it correctly (and maybe not the best way).
MB 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I have added Kate Baker to Category:20th-century Australian women. At the risk of getting a lot of hate, can someone please review to check if this is correct? - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 15:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:State government in Nigeria is a mess. It must be made more consistent. I can fix it if you just answer these two quick questions.
First question: In which categories should the articles for an individual state government be placed? Ex: Government of Lagos State.
Second question: In which categories should the category for the state government be placed? Ex: Category:Government of Lagos State.
Thank you. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 05:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's particularly clear what the category Category:Ethnic humour is intended to be categorising. Some of the pages which appear under this category are clearly about comedy that emerges from particular cultures, such as the article Australian comedy or Jewish humor, while others seem to be about racist "comedy", such as the article Blackface or Examples of yellowface. While these articles do share some tangential similarities in subject matter, I can't help but question whether this broadness violates WP:NPOV; it wouldn't be hard to imagine someone seeing the articles Racial brownface and Indonesian comedy in the same category and coming away with a negative impression of Indonesian culture. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 10:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed this category move on my watchlist, which (I believe correctly) changed "female" to "women". However other closely related categories were not also moved to refer to gender instead of sex. Could a bot be tasked to systematically fix such errors in category titles? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, This is to notify the Wikiproject about Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 12. Here's an example edit Special:Diff/1045097487 Ladsgroup overleg 12:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I hope it's the right place to talk about this.
Akandkur ( talk · contribs) is currently removing articles from Category:Music memes and Category:Internet memes based on personal opinion rather than sources.
Some examples: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
What do you think?
Pinging Rodney Araujo who added the categories on some articles. -- Thibaut ( talk) 00:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Advice seems to indicate that categories like Category:Irish male actors and Category:Irish actresses should not be diffusing with Category:Irish actors but they are. Can anyone help me understand this? Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
After multiple WP:CfD nominations produced contradictory results, I've set up a Request for Comment here to try and determine which naming convention should be used for the subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection. Should it be (A) Paintings in [a museum, etc.] or (B) Paintings in the collection of [a museum, etc.]? Resolution is sorely needed so that names elsewhere in the category tree can be cleaned up, so please contribute! Ham II ( talk) 08:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
So I know we have {{ container category}} and {{ cat diffuse}} for when a category should have no articles, or very few articles, respectively, but is there a template for the opposite case, where a category should contain only articles? For instance, all of the "XXXX births" categories should contain only articles, and while I think that is common knowledge and so don't think such a template would be needed on those, is there a template to use on only-article categories where that is less commonly known? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
See List_of_scientific_skeptics A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
See this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Just checking When I go Edit-> Category and them go to add a category. If I enter Say Wikipedia Victoria, then it doesn't show Wikipedia in Victoria, but asks me to create a category Am I doing it right?? Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, folks,
Every year, we have lots of editors eager to create the next year's annual categories and we will soon see a lot of empty 2022 categories on the empty category list, especially towards the end of December. I'm already running into premature "X in 2022" articles in main space and I expect to see this happen with categories in coming weeks.
Even though we deal with this every autumn/winter, I don't recall if there are specific guidelines about creating these annual categories early and I don't see anything about this in my very quick scan of the categorization pages. If the categories are empty, they can just be tagged CSD C1 but any other advice on whether categories prematurely created and filled with a few pages should be emptied and turned into temporary redirects until the year is actually underway? I don't think it would be useful to clog up CFD with deletion nominations for categories that might well need to be recreated once we hit January. I don't expect this to be an issue until December but I thought I'd ask before it becomes a problem. Many thanks, in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page for Category:Mass shootings in the United States about whether the {{ all included}} banner should appear on the page. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion there. Thank you. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
It's a page that few people watch, so more eyes invited: Category talk:Expatriates#RfC: Proposal to change the definition of "expatriate" for the purposes of categorization Herostratus ( talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of the categories related to WikiProject Gender studies do not match the project name. The word "studies" should not be capitalized.
Here's a list of the categories that need to be moved/renamed:
Then, to repopulate the right categories, correct the word "studies" in the project template and the userbox. I'll manually check every entry. Thanks in advance, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 07:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Non-diffused category checker. All comments welcome. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I recently attempted to add {{ they do}} to Category:Editor's pronouns templates, but for some reason the Category page wouldn't show up {{ they do}}, while every other page showed up including those which were added to the category after I added {{ they do}}. What happened here? --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 10:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there such a tag? For example for a category that is categorised under what should be its own subcategories. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
[[Category:Disasters in Ontario]]
[[Category:Great Lakes ships|Great Lakes]]
[[Category:Shipwrecks in lakes|Great Lakes]]
[[Category:Shipwrecks of New York (state)]]
[[Category:Shipwrecks of the United States|Great Lakes]]
[[Category:Shipwrecks of Canada|Great Lakes]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Illinois]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Indiana]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Michigan]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Minnesota]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Ohio]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Wisconsin]]
[[Category:Water transport in Ontario]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Illinois]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Indiana]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Michigan]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Minnesota]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Ohio]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:Water transportation in Wisconsin]]
Category:Great Lakes ships and
Category:Shipwrecks in lakes
to be valid. all the others apply to only some of the articles in the category, and probably a different subset for each, so somewhat labour intensive. I am reasonably confident I can fix this all, but not quickly, and all purely manually. I am used to doing category work on an ad hoc basis, not normally such a large batch with so much to fix. Is there a semi automated way to do it? Cheers, · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 07:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a semi automated way to do it?Wikipedia:Cat-a-lot? ― Qwerfjkl talk 12:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with Rathfelder. The subcategory "New Zealand women academics" states at the top of the page that the articles in this subcategory can also appear in the parent category i.e. in "NZ academics". Rathfelder has removed articles on women academics from the category "NZ academics". I don't think this is correct. Any thoughts appreciated. MurielMary ( talk) 11:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I found myself in a dispute with @ Rathfelder: on the P. J. Rhodes article. They removed "Category:English academics" from the article on the grounds that it is covered by "Category:Classical scholars of the University of Durham". That category is indeed in the hierarchy - "Academics of Durham University" --> "Category:Academics by university or college in England" --> "Category:English academics". But why is it? "Category:English academics" describes itself as "This category is about Academics from England" and is part of the "Category:English people" tree (i.e. a nationality tree). It is perfectly conceivable that someone might be an academic based at an English University without being an "English person", so it seems strange to me that "Academics by university of college in England" is included in the "English people" tree. Furius ( talk) 01:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Academics who are American citizens or of any nationality who are or have been based in the United States., though there is nothing equivalent at Category:British academics or Category:New Zealand academics. Category:Moroccan academics has a note saying "
This category is for articles about academics from the African country of Morocco." created using a template, and Category:Indian academics defines "Academic" but not "Indian". In short, we have the usual inconsistency. Perhaps it needs some consideration. Pam D 12:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Template:Improve categories. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 01:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:Cats2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 03:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I usually add biographies to a "People from <city of birth>" category. Category:People from Gibraltar was merged with Category:Gibraltarians in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_7#Category:People_from_Gibraltar (@ Rathfelder: as nominator). So I'm a bit stuck with what to do with René Neuville, the son of a French diplomat who was born and raised in Gibraltar but never described as "Gibraltarian" in terms of ethnicity or nationality. Is the existence of an "edge case" like Neuville enough to recreate the category? Or should I just leave the article out of that category tree? – Joe ( talk) 11:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion about the tree of Category:Cafés, see WikiProject Food and Drink talk page. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I often work on and often find new pages with colons at the start of otherwise perfectly good links to categories eg Dwarka Courts Complex: Revision as of 00:57, 15 February 2022 (edit)
Category:South West Delhi district Category:Courthouses in India
This leads to a minor adjustment removing the colon, and the category displays correctly. It seems that the colon is being introduced somewhere in a new page template somewhere, and if it could be removed it would save much time and effort having to remove it again. It would be great if someone could help with this. Many thanks, Berek ( talk) 10:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Draft categories|...}}instead? DB1729 ( talk) 17:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
[13] Why is there so much variance in the number of items in this category? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I make a lot of category sorting edits, adding and modifying sorting keys. Occasionally I am questioned ( ex1, ex2) or reverted [14] [15] [16] by well-intentioned, even experienced editors, who have mistaken category sortkey syntax for piped link syntax. This is understandable and not surprising. The two functions happen to use the same markup, the pipe "|" character being the main culprit in the confusion.
I have identified three areas that are either exacerbating the problem or could be improved to help the situation:
[[:Category:Topic]]
. That's fine, but the problem with this method is when there is a sortkey added. The leading colon effectively converts the category declaration into a piped-link, and the resulting display only shows the sorting key, which looks odd and confusing. For example, a draft titled
Draft:List of amphibians of Argentina, we would expect it to contain the following category with the Argentina sortkey, but [[:Category:Lists of amphibians by country|Argentina]]
merely produces
Argentina, which would appear at the bottom of the page where the categories are located. It would not be unreasonable for an editor, especially a newer one noticing this odd behavior, to assume "|" is part of a piped link and remove it thinking it will cause the same behavior in mainspace after the suppression is lifted. They might even challenge others who try to add them after the page goes live. Note the other, less-used suppression method {{
Draft categories}} performs far better. It displays the category link as intended and as it would appear in a live article. In fact, it also provides a brief explanation in a box, which is nice.{{Draft categories|Category:Lists of amphibians by country|Argentina}}
produces: I have no idea how feasible some of this is or if posting it here will help at all, but any thoughts on all or any part of it is appreciated. DB1729 ( talk) 21:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines or criteria for making tracking maintenance categories? I found how-to instructions but I did not find any should-you-actually-be-doing-this guidelines. This is about the tracking categories, which are usually of the form Category:Articles with X
where X is some sort of problem to be fixed. Should there be any discussion or consensus that X is a problem before creating a tracking category for it? It seems obvious, but I didn't see it detailed anywhere. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 21:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Lists of ambassadors categorization. -- DB1729 ( talk) 03:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I just created my first category, Category:Ballpoint pen art. Feel free to tell me if I did anything wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, i was trying to create new categories, I have already red the
guidelines but i didn't quite grasp it fully, for example how to make a tree of categories, i use {{
CatAutoTOC}}
and leave it to work its magic (and i double check for results). Would you mind to take a look at my attempts
see here,
here,
and here and share any suggestion on how to do it better? Some advices would be helpful. Cheers. --
Opencross (
talk) 15:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Year_categories_for_upcoming_products having run into some pushback on removing categories such as Category:2023 films on upcoming films at Category talk:2023 films and I couldn't find any official guidance on the matter - thoughts welcome. Le Deluge ( talk) 17:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
If I know a specific article "X" is within a subcat (at arbitrary depth) of a specific cat "Cat:Y", is there a way to trace the cat hierarchy ("Cat:Y contains Cat:A, which contains Cat:B, which contains X")? My specific use-case is that PETSCAN is giving unexpected pages when I request a cat-tree, and I'm trying to figure out which intermediate cat is mis-categorized. DMacks ( talk) 17:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I opened a discussion in MOS:TV about the deletion of 13 categories from a TV series. The series is well-known for its inclusion of LGBT characters and topics -- yet LGBT categories were deleted. Prior to this, 15 categories (including LGBT-related) were deleted from a film whose main character is a lesbian teenager and the plot revolves around her. I discovered these deletions because the articles are on my watchlist ... but how many other articles are experiencing the careless deletion of categories with the HotCat gadget? The discussion in MOS:TV is here. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Cause of death for most people is not a defining characteristic. Should cause of death be a category to add to every possible Wikipedia biography? Cause of death is not mentioned in WP:PEOPLECAT and would seem to fail WP:CATDEF? Hundreds of biographies are now having death-related categories added. For example, Category:Stroke-related deaths in Arizona was just added to Lillian Moller Gilbreth. She was noted for several things, but what she died from at age 93 isn't one of them. Why is it diffused by state? She lived in Arizona with her daughter only after she became too frail to live alone in New Jersey. Wikipedia category pages aren't the place to build up such public health data by state. That is what Wikidata is for, where one can query "people who died of stroke in Arizona", "engineers who died of stroke", "women engineers who died of stroke" and any other combination that might be of interest for some purpose. StarryGrandma ( talk) 15:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability. MB 22:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Template:Expand language, has an RFC which is within the scope of this WikiProject, for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -- N8wilson 21:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Informed opinion sought. Subject came out this week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)