Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 3

message: When starting a new talk page I was presented with this slightly erroneous message:
"Wikipedia does not have an entry on Geography of King County, Washington yet. ..." Robin Patterson 20:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category talk page 

message: (Can I add that it would be desperately useful to have a bot that shifted all articles from one category to another - if we had this, we could switch categories by creating a new and deleting the old - the history of a category probably isn't importantenough to retain). DJ Clayworth 16:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFE: Auto-move category 

message: Kelvin is tagged as belonging to the category SI base units but SI base units does not list Kelvin.  Any ideas on what's going on here? -- Grunt 03:16, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)
:Categories have problems with slow updating. I don't know why. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that, but the other articles I tagged with SI base units (Mole (unit), Metre, Candela, Second, and Ampere were all added immediately to the category... -- Grunt 15:06, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)
I went to Kelvin and did an "Edit" and "Save".  Since I didn't modify anything, nothing shows up in History. But lo and behold, Kelvin now appears in :Category:SI base units.  -- Curps 15:52, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused categorisation of "Kelvin" 

message: I would like to start a Category.  First there are no directions anywhere on how one starts a category.  I put a new Category and it shows up in red.  I can't firgure out how to make it blue.
Second I found directions at mediwiki but there is nothing about starting a new name category.  
Third, For the Classics  for topics like that of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece.  I know they have a category already but "Classics" needs their own category and ancient Greece and Ancient Rome need to be sub-categories for this one.  And what should it be named "Classics", "Classical", "Classical Dept." (my choice), "Western Classics", ...??? If I am a classical scholar and want to go to all subjects dealing with the Classics what should be the category name?WHEELER 22:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It still appears red.  I added [Category:Human] to vice and I have added Category:Vice to the Human category and it still appears red.  So I am still not doing something right.  I also added a sentence in it and it still appears red.WHEELER 18:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got it the wrong way around:   Don't add Category:Vice to Category:Human, you do the other way around, you add Category:Human to Category:Vice (so that Category:Vice is a subcategory of Category:Human).  Adding Category:Vice to Category:Human would make Category:Human a subcategory of Category:Vice, which would still not have a parent or any text, and would therefore still be red. --Lexor|Talk 00:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: UPDATE: I went back and made "Texans" a subcategory of "People". Now, if I go directly to the Texans category page, it looks fine. But if you click to any of the people listed on it, the category links at the bottom of those pages still send you to the edit page! --Michael K. Smith 22:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the category is red or blue depends on whether or not there is content in the category itself, above and beyond having articles that are members.  Since every category should be a category of some other category, all categories should have content, and hence blue.  If you don't know what category to put a new category in, edit it and add Category:Orphaned categories and someone else will deal. If it's still red after that, hit Reload in your browser. -- Beland 07:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I finally got it to work, but I don't know why it worked. I had already put text in the edit box (explaining who should be included), but that had no effect. Finally, I went back and moved the category tags to the bottom of the article, and that seemed to do it -- even though a previous category had been listed at the top of the article and was working just fine. And even though all the categories I've added to new pages at WikiQuote work okay at the top of the page. All of which sounds like squirrely wikicode to me. --Michael K. Smith 15:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The quickest way I have found to deal with this problem is this:  In any articles assigned to the category before the category was created 1) delete the category link, 2) save the article, 3) paste the category link back into the article, and 4) save the article.  This technique forces everything to update.  But you have to do it for each pre-existing article that was already linked into the category.  Mike 17:45, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a bug or a caching problem or what.  I have noticed that when I delete items from a category, they don't always show up right away, but adding seems to be pretty reliable.  It seems to get worse if I obsessively hit Reload in the category in a vain attempt to make things deleted go away.  In this situation, I would recommend doing something else for an hour or two and see if it fixes itself, rather than doing lots of work to force it. -- Beland 03:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wanting to Start a Category

message: Check out :Category:Airports_of_Australia - the link to Launceston Airport at the bottom appears non-existant (ie. question mark, or red underline, depending on your settings).. however, the page does exists, as you see if you click on it. -- Chuq 12:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug - non-existant page in category? 

message: I'm putting this here because I couldn't figure out one logical place among all the categorization/category pages to put this request.
*First, every page that is a member of a category has a link at the bottom of the form Categories:categoryName.  One would expect that clicking on Categories would give you something useful--but NOooo, it takes you to Special:Categories, which gives you the first 50 alphabetically of all existing categories and subcategories, which is useless in almost all cases.  This link needs to go either to a page that explains what categories are and gives some options on where to go (such as  Wikipedia:Category) or else simply to the top-level hierarchical category, either  :Category:Categories or :Category:Fundamental.
*Second, the top of Special:Categories needs to display text that helps you to get someplace useful from there--first, tells you what it's a list of ("all existing categories and subcategories") and, next, tells you how to get someplace useful (see first point).   
Thoughts?  Elf | Talk 05:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct. The Categories link is pretty useless for the average user in this context. older≠wiser 15:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK--good--now, how do these get changed? I think I remember seeing a page for text that appears on "special" pages but I can't find it; and I have no clue where the destination for the Categories link is defined.  Elf | Talk 01:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories issues

message: Actually not disambiguation, strictly speaking, but Categories whose names are too general in the world's namespace. The specific example is :Category:The Republic which turns out to contain information about Star Wars characters and not a reference to either governmental systems or Plato.
My question is this: are we following the same system we do with the main articles, i.e. should this category be :Category:The Republic (Star Wars) or should it be something else? 
:I think the system of government would probably appear as Category:Republics while Plato's Republic would be a single article somewhere more appropriate.  I don't see a need for redirection in this case. Mike 06:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't add an article to a category you've never seen before, so AFAIK that kind of disambiguation is unnecessary. It would also be redundant, since the information is already contained in the category itself (the list of its parent categories). The name of :Category:The Republic would only have to be changed if another category arose that was more deserving of the name. ··gracefool |☺ 22:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation of Categories

message: The present Category system seems tied to words, not to concepts. :Category:The Republic carries all the meanings of that term and subcategories are required for disambiguation.  This does not support multiple languages well — "The Republic" of Plato and Star Wars may have different names in other languages, so that disambiguation category does not exist in other languages.  There may be a language where the literal retranslation (back to english) of those two Republics might be "Republic Thought" and "Republican Galaxy".  Each category should be a concept.  I suggest Category Namespaces, so the names of subcategories can be the same as other subcategories.  So Category:Art:Movies:Star Wars:The Republic is different from Category:Philosophy:Philosophers:Plato:The Republic.  Any similarities between the two Republics should be by concepts, not by names. (SEWilco 21:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conceptual categories 

message: I was about to add Fallujah either to Iraqi Cities or Cities in Iraq, neither of which exist.  I ended up finding :Category:Cities_by_country and, as can be seen, there are the seeds here of an unhappy inconsistency.  How can this be resolved?  --bodnotbod 20:26, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
:Ooops.. see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Categorization_Naming_Conventions below -- Chuq 23:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming convention for Cities by Country 

message: Regarding Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 3#Category naming conventions - it doesn't appear that anything was decided one way or the other.  I've just started some categorising Tasmanian rivers - I created Tasmanian geography, made it a sub-category of the existing Australian rivers, which I then added to Australian geography.  Unfortunately, I then found Geography of Australia already existed.
      
I think it should be decided one way or another.  Should it be done differently with people?
I think Australian sportspeople, Australian musicians, sounds better than Sportspeople of Australia, Musicians of Australia.  But I think Islands of Australia, Bridges of Australia, sounds better than Australian islands, Australian bridges.
Informal vote? Chuq 02:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is that they are not always the same, because someone could be "of Australia" but not be an Australian, no?  And what about those for which the nationality and ethnicity are mixed up? Chinese sportspeople and Sportspeople of China are very very different. So I would vote for the X of Y option to be the clearest. Fuzheado | Talk 04:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "(items) of (area)" categories 

message: === :Category:2004 ===
Discussion moved to :Category talk:Years. -Sean Curtin 22:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years 

message: Discussion moved to :Category talk:Years. -Sean Curtin 22:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:2004]] 

message: On a related note, it may be worthwhile to do :Category:As of 2004 (as a subset of the :Category:Wikipedia maintenance pages), to replace As of 2004 and related pages....this is an easy way to find articles that may become dated over time.  What do you think?  Catherine | talk 20:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Category:As of 2004] ?

message: I've been doing some work in filling out some articles on artists and appear to have run into an edit war whilst rationalising :Category:Painters where I found a couple of people whom I feel should not be in this category. Can some other editors take a look at the discussion on Talk:Bill Oddie and give some additional input as to whether Bill Oddie and/or Winston Churchill should be included or not. I've offered the solution of inserting :Category:Amateur painters but that doesn't seem to have been accepted. -- Solipsist 19:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Painters 

message: What should be the procedure for handling disputes over whether or not an article should be in a category when consensus cannot be reached?  On a regular article page you can compromise, but with categories the article is either included or it isn't.  See Talk:Bowling_for_Columbine#Category:Propaganda.
====List of possibly POV categories====
We as a group have begun in a few different places around WP to identify a potential problem with POV in categorization. It seems this is happening when a category is created that has a negative connotation and no self-evident criteria for inclusion/exclusion. (It probably could also happen with a category having an extreme positive connotation, but I haven't seen that come up yet.) I think it may be useful to understand more fully just which actual, current categories are subject to this phenomenon, so that we may draw better-grounded conclusions after inspecting a more full set of actual examples. To that end, I'm starting an alphabetical list here (feel free to chip in) of categories I think are likely to cause POV controversy. --Gary D 01:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: How should disputes be handled?

message: We as a group have begun in a few different places around WP to identify a potential problem with POV in categorization. It seems this is happening when a category is created that has a negative connotation and no self-evident criteria for inclusion/exclusion. (It probably could also happen with a category having an extreme positive connotation, but I haven't seen that come up yet.) I think it may be useful to understand more fully just which actual, current categories are subject to this phenomenon, so that we may draw better-grounded conclusions after inspecting a more full set of actual examples. To that end, I'm starting an alphabetical list here (feel free to chip in) of categories I think are likely to cause POV controversy. --Gary D 01:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: List of possibly POV categories

message: I've started adding to the list, but really there are a whole lot more, more than I care to waste my time enumerating. anthony (see warning) 14:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: For those who are interested, I'm trying to drum up interest in organising the visual arts categories at Category talk:Art -- Solipsist 21:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art categories 

message: A lot of the issues with the new Wiki Categories have been encountered before.  I found related pages were poorly interconnected... so I created :Category:Knowledge representation.  Take a look there for some concepts which you might not be aware of. (SEWilco 07:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Knowledge representation 

message: At Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/FHM110sexiest, there has been an ongoing discussion over whether around 300 articles on everyone from Marge Simpson to Paula Zahn to Diana, Princess of Wales should all be categorized according to their being listed in FHM magazine's annual poll of the 100 sexiest women.  So far, only several people have taken part in this, which I think is too few to resolve the fate of how so many articles will be classified, and to decide an issue that cuts to the heart of what purpose categories serve on wikipedia and the power they have in branding an article as to what it is.  I'd love to see a lot more people joining in over there so we can better weigh whether such a category has a place on here.  Postdlf 14:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Important discussion at Categories for Deletion