Wikipedia talk:Category types

message: I've also been thinking about some general purpose templates for categories that might help in their management.  I hate the  template, and would like some that are much more user friendly, not blatantly self-referential and move us towards the category structure discussed at Wikipedia:Category intersection.  I'm not sure of all the details, so I wanted to bounce the idea off you before I do anything.  (Samuel then wrote the first version of the proposal on the project page)
What do you think? -- Samuel Wantman 08:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this thread should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization, but I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Categories getting out of hand.  As currently implemented categories have no formal meaning and no formal structure (other than directed graph), which I think means any attempt to attribute meaning to categories is ultimately doomed.  I suspect there's not much point in doing anything along these lines until we have something like semantic mediawiki. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick, thanks for commenting. Yes as currently implemented categories do not have a formal meaning and a formal structure.  That is why I'm trying to give them more structure.  The classes I came up with are based on the structure that most categories seem to have, and by putting these labels on categories we would be giving categories more structure in a wiki-like way.  Categories seem to be at a point that they will either degrade into meaninglessness or take form.  I'm not quite ready to give up on them yet. -- Samuel Wantman 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Samuel's types of categories outlined above. These are exactly the sort of categories I've been seeing develop. I've always tried to add a few lines explaining a category to the editors using it, and directing them to more appropriate categories if needed, and directing readers to the correct place as well. See what I did at :Category:Tsunamis and :Category:Tsunami. Carcharoth 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh? I've visited this page before? I don't remember it having the snazzy looking symbols back then... :-) Carcharoth 10:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just an outline at WP:OCAT then. --Samuel Wantman 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion originally posted at [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization]] 

message: *Very strong oppose Samuel Wantman wants to convert his own views on how particular articles should be categorised into mandatory rules that everyone must follow, taking   away their discretion to use their own judgement. This would be inappropriate regardless of what outcomes he advocated, but it is made especially so by the fact that he has very eccentric views that command very little support, as is demonstrated by the currently unanimous rejection of his attempt to get the category diffusion template deleted. Choalbaton 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposed to what?  This isn't a vote. I'm not even done with creating these labels and the text on the page.  These labels could be tailored to our categories no matter how they are populated.  While there is objection to removing Catdiffuse, there was clearly support for fixing it and helping people understand how to use categories.  That is all that I am trying to do, and you can help in that effort. -- Samuel Wantman 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm designing the templates with several parameters so that they can be tailored to different situations.  If it gains wide acceptance it would be a guideline.  Until then it is just category tags. -- Samuel Wantman 06:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with lquilter's point that these tags should only be applied to mature and well-developed (I hesitate to say 'stable') categories. Firstly, if the categories in question change a few months later, the tags would need changing. If they are not changed, the tags will be misleading. The tags might also discourage people from subcategorising or reorganising a category structure - in some cases this would be good, in other cases it would be bad. Carcharoth 10:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My second point relates to lquilter's point about wanting an "exploded" listing of the parent cat + the contents of all the parent cats' children cat, in a tree formation. This is already available at the Special:CategoryTree tool, though that will only show the first 200 articles in a category, so is not suitable for very large categories. Carcharoth 10:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I suggest that for taxonomic categories, a templated link to Special:CategoryTree using "PAGENAME" be provided at the top of the category page. Carcharoth 10:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New comments

message: It is already a problem that the top section of category pages takes up so much space, and adding multiline boxes would make things far worse. When I go to the category I want to see what it is in, not all sorts of introductory comments and links to other things. These boxes assume that people aren't smart enough to develop their own understanding of the category system, but actually readers can be trusted to do that just fine, and will not benefit from this patronising intrusion. Cloachland 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There are links to parent categories at the bottom of each category page, and these boxes partially duplicate their function while adding very little benefit. They also potentially introduce an element of controversy, as they take a POV on which links are most relevant. That could be dangerous in hotly disputed subject areas. Wimstead 13:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I see it the category system has plenty of order already and is steadily improving. Osomec 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding the actual content

message: From my own experience of categorisation, I recognise the category types you are describing here, and I support the system that is being set up. To address some of the concerns people have raised, maybe it would be a good idea to demonstrate that a category that seems to lump lots of things together can actually be separated out into several of these types. Find an example that covers all these types, and then give the category name used for each type. You already have film for three of them. Try and find an example where the differences between all five types can be demonstrated in the same subject area. For example, if you have a long list of earthquakes (the index category: :Category:Earthquakes), some people may want to divide it up by date, some by location, some by type, and so on. These are the navigation categories (:Category:Earthquakes by country; :Category:Earthquakes by century; :Category:Earthquakes by type - the latter hasn't been created and populated yet). The topic category would be articles on the science of earthquakes (:Category:Seismology). If an earthquake spawns lots of subarticles, like the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, then that would have a subject category, in this case :Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Am I understanding this correctly? Carcharoth 10:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  This is exactly correct.  There seems to be a natural progression to how categories develop.  They start as topic categories and pretty soon, specific instances get divided out into an index (often by just adding an "s", like "film" and "films").  The indexes get broken up into several indexes and then the topic category is also a navigation category (see; :Category:Bridges) for an example).  When this gets too big, the navigation category could get split off as well.  This doesn't seem to happen much these days, instead the topics get split into subtopics. -- Samuel Wantman 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, nevermind... It seems that User:Lquilter just got finished cleaning up the category yesterday : ) - jc37 10:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a nice flexible system 

message: The underlying idea seems to be that there is one correct way of thinking about categories, and users should be guided to follow it. This negates one of the greatest strengths of wikipedia, ie that it is gloriously flexible with multiple methods of navigation, and plenty of flexibility in the way they are used to account for special circumstances in each field. It is all very well for a user to clarify in his own mind how the category system works for him, but the proposal here is that this should then be displayed across Wikipedia in what would amount to tens of thousands of screens worth of text and colour. If this was implemented actual articles would rarely be visible when a category first loaded, one would have to scroll down past this largely useless information every time. When a user visits a category they usually know that they want to see what is in the that category; it is completely inappropriate to give make a set of suggestions for other places they might look the first thing that they see. Osomec 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have problems with the "see this and that" bits. They are too formulaic. I think it is best to just have the "this is an X type of category" and leave it at that. Note that you can do this already, as the "see this and that" bit is optional. Carcharoth 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, "see this and that" bits are often already in a category. Just putting the "type" label on a category is enough. Carcharoth 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My intent was to try and standardize the way the "see this and that" bits are done, not necessarily to incite more of them. -- Samuel Wantman 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a bad, inflexible, prescriptive system, patronising and a waste of space

message: First of all, I really like the guidelines you've put together here Samuel. Whoever said "This is a bad, inflexible, prescriptive system, patronising and a waste of space" is being intellectually lazy and simply doesn't want to try and improve on the current system. I'm trying to leverage the power of all the information stored in the category links but without these distinctions it is extremely difficult.
I think that this simply standardizes the way that categories are already being used without ruling out new possible uses or even requiring a category to have a type and any point in time. I'm sure concerns over the display templates can alleviated; I agree that as is, with the "see this and that" bits, they are probably too large for the top of some pages.
Froggy 000 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category types = Good 

message: I don't specialize in categorization, but there seem to be a lot of categories of categories here, and it might do more harm than good to artificially place a level on each category.  Any given category will have some subcategories and/or supercategories, and people can navigate through.  Also, it will be time-consuming to implement, and it creates one more backlog for untagged categories.  But it's not a bad idea - I just question its practical benefit. YechielMan 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the way to find out what use a category might contain is to look at what it does contain, not to read a standardised description which may or may not address the relevant points. Wimstead 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too confusing

message: I think this is a great idea.  The category types make sense and the suggested templates will help visitors to navigate Wikipedia.  The only downside I can see is that this should take a relatively low priority and should (as was suggested above) be a guideline rather than a firm policy.  Categories that already have a lot of information in their headers either don't need the template added or should be tidied up to make room for it.  Waggers 09:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great idea

message: It looks like this proposal has is not proceeding and consensus for acceptance is not evident.  This should be marked as rejected ASAP. --Kevin Murray 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is ridiculous.  This is ongoing.  I just haven't had time to do anything about it recently.  -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus - Rejected

message: As we all know, there are a good many controversial categories.  There are a number of guidelines that address this, although their intent is a matter of interpretation.  Examples include:
:Wikipedia:Categorization
:* §2.1 Some general guidelines, point 8 — "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."
:Wikipedia:Categorization of people
:* §1 Biographies of living people — "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced." and "Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation."
:* §4 General considerations — "For some 'sensitive' categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for 'sensitive' categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization." and "Exert extra precaution with regard to the categorization of living people"
:Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
:* §1 Categories — "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."
:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
:* §6 Use of categories — (Same text as Wikipedia:Categorization of people, §1 Biographies of living people.)
Given the frequent mention of lists in these instances, it's clear that what's really being discussed is what this proposal terms an index category.  I think that the best way to satisfy these portions of the guidelines — and eliminate a huge amount of conflict between editors — would be to severely restrict (or outright prohibit) index categories in the case of controversial topics.  This is actually already the case for categories involving religious belief or sexual preference, as applied to biographies of living people.  I suggest that we simply generalize the restriction in a way that makes sense, rather than continue to deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis.  In order for this generalization to make sense, we would need to establish a taxonomy of categories similar to that described in this proposal.
Note that most of these categories could either be modified or merged into a different topic category, so the intent of the category could be preserved.  For instance, everyone listed under :Category:Pseudoscientists could uncontroversially be recategorized under :Category:Pseudoscience, which is a topic category.  I claim this would be uncontroversial because anyone even accused of being a pseudoscience (as long as the accusation is notable and referenced properly) is related to the topic in virtue of that accusation.  At the very least, it would completely eliminate the problem of each side trying to "prove" one way or another whether the person really is a pseudoscientist, and focus the editorial debate on the more appropriate issue of cited references.
I would like to modify this proposal to be more in line with the desires of the other editors who have expressed an opinion here, and to emphasize the problematic nature of controversial index categories.  I'd like some feedback here before proceeding, however.  --Sapphic 01:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you are saying about index categories and controversy.  The impetus for these templates was to try and distinguish between the different ways that people are using categories so that we can make decisions about when it is appropriate to use one type of category over another.  It might be very helpful to explain how typing categories might help avoid some of these controversies.  -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index categories on controversial topics 

message: One thing that might help is to point out that the labels are not intended to cover all categories. There may be categories that don't fall neatly into one of these types, or are still developing a clearer structure, so it should be emphasised that these tags should only be used in clear-cut cases. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all categories need this label 

message: There is related discussion currently at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An active proposal again