Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 6

message: Is there a way to suggest a category merge like  for articles?  I noticed there is both a :Category:Eurodance and a :Category:Eurodance musicians.  05:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because categories can't usefully be redirected, we usually take this straight to WP:CFD and suggest deleting one of them. Actually, though, in this case, shouldn't :Category:Eurodance musicians be a subcategory of :Category:Eurodance? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging Categories

message: What happened to all previous discussion? Where have the links to archived material gone? Even the straw poll below refers to "Please read the section above", but the section has been removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Whoa, I have no idea... —Tarnas 21:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived old discussion. Everything's fixed, I hope... —Tarnas 06:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion page mysteriously truncated

message: I created a category but it says that "There is 1 subcategory to this category" the thing is that it links back to itself. What did I do wrong?? The page is here: Category:Historic Houses of North Carolina
:There was a category link on the page. Fixed it to a better suited category. --Laisak 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Question

message: What we actually want to achieve is a semantic structure, where we try to use non primitive constructions, without having the primitives integrated yet (Neither categories, lists or navifgation bars are). We need some basic primitives to link articles in a structured mannor. 
* External structuring information: (already done with categories) "element of" <-> "category"
* Properties: "name of property: value" (currently not well solved) - to make automatic structured list generation possible as well as defining proper prede- and successors
* list formatter: The lists associated with categories should be formatable by specifying a template
* navigator: a navigation bar, that displays some prede- and successors and the category, also with an adjustable template (format probably like the category entry + template link)
* semantic browser: a browser that can read the data and display it like the visible thesaurus or freemind would be really great
* structuring: It is already demonstrated in Wikipedia:Wikispecies, well we do not have to go that far but the goal would be something like OWL for semantics
--BoP 22:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What we need 

message: I think it would be more efficient use of wikispace if the text in the "starred article" in a category, which summarizes that particular category, went onto the category page per se, and then the article in the main namespace simply redirected to the category page.  However, I will probably get significant opposition to this proposal because it would look silly having the name of the main article appear after "Category:" at the top of the page, applying this to all such articles would take a heck of a lot of time to accomplish, and it simply doesn't fit the fundamental style of an encyclopedia.  If that is the case, then such an action could only be applied to less-frequently viewed "starred articles".  Denelson83  02:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But not all category pages are organised this way. Some have more than one article under the * heading. Some have none. And furthermore, the category page (the bit above the list of articles and categories populating a category) is used very inconsistently, with some people using it to merge articles as you say (an example is :Category:Nature), and some people using it (correctly) to describe what the category contains, how it relates to other categories and articles, and what NOT to put in the category (examples are :Category:Operas and :Category:Disasters). I've also seen people putting links to categories in the "see also" sections of articles. Also, your proposal effectively turns categories into articles with a much larger "see also" section. This may be appropriate for some categories. I have seen some categories which, by bringing together related articles, are showing people the potential for a new article about the whole category. Effectively prompting people to write * articles that don't yet exist for a category. This is more appropriate for 'topic' categories than 'list' categories (for which the * article is typically a list). Carcharoth 04:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Even if all categories had one main article, which most don't, the articles would often be way too long. They subcategories and categorised articles would become footnotes. And I don't want to see the main article for categories I visit frequently every single time I do so.  CalJW 02:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging main articles in categories into their respective category pages 

message: I posted what was below to express agreement with Larry Sanger's comments; now I see those are no longer here.
:I agree.  On a number of occasions I've had to explain the seemingly obvious fact that topics lists are far superior to categories, and I've been horrified a couple of times when someone proposed deleting a topics list because there's a category.  In particular:
:*Topics lists can readily be organized; categories cannot be organized (except to the extent to which subcategories do that).  See, for example, list of probability topics, list of geometry topics, list of combinatorics topics.
:*Topics lists can contain invisible links to talk pages, so that when you click on "related changes", recent edits to talk pages are included.  Here's how you do that:
::::omphalology  
::Since only a blank space appears after the vertical slash, the link to the talk page is invisible.; it can't be clicked on, but it affects "related changes".
:*An inappropriately named category cannot be moved to another name except by editing all pages that link to it!
:*One can put red links into lists but not into categories.
:*more to come ... watch this space
:Michael Hardy 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it is one of the great merits of Wikipedia is that it allows people to use whichever of several methods of navigation they prefer. Many people value categorisation, and where there are both categories and lists the categories are usually more complete now even though the lists had a three year head start, which strongly indicates that categories are more valued overall. If you don't like them, just ignore them. Good lists are also valuable of course, but there are many many poor and incomplete ones. CalJW 02:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contra categorization

message: I think it is better to start a Category for Pages without Category, as an temp place for Pages without Category before they can be placed in a proper category.
:The person who wrote the above MAY HAVE been intending it as a comment on the Japan discussion, in which case an extra "=" at each end of the heading would help. BUT MAYBE that person has never found Special:Uncategorizedpages?  Robin Patterson 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages without category 

message: Last night, I added two new categories to the article on "Paul Franco", and then edited each to add parent categories.  But as of this morning, the two new categories have still not gone "live", at least for me: if I click on them (e.g. "Americal political writers"), I get an edit page for the category, showing only the parent entries I edited.  How do I make the category go "live", where the links bring up the usual list of other articles under that category, etc.?
BeteNoir 16:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Purge? -- Zondor 17:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories Not Going Live 

message: There are contradictory statements in two guidline articles, concerning the question whether pages should belong to the parent categories of the categories they define. For example, should Musical notation be placed in :Category:Musicology just because :Category:Musical notation is in it? See the two oppoiste statements here and the other here, in both to be found in the example of Microsoft Office categorization. Which version is the official? Karol 16:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: :Category:Wikipedia images by topic and :Category:Wikipedia images by type should be merged - or the difference should be cleary explained on the relevant pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominate it at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. --Laisak 01:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I think that various categories 'American... actor, singer, poet' etc. should be renamed to 'United States... actor' or 'Actors of United States'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that consensus has been reached on the American format at WP:CFD. --Laisak 01:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename American

message: I'd like to suggest that someone write an introductory section for this article that reminds editors why categories make Wikipedia more useful.  I've been editing long enough to remember their introduction, and the only reason I can recall that made category support a priority feature was that Wikipedians were wild about lists at the time, and using categories instead of lists were believed to be more flexible.  This purpose is alluded to in :Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes but I'd suggest that a complete summary belongs here, right at the beginning, and that this article focus on the why before getting into the how.
To use some different words, I'm suggesting the article begin with the narrative equivalent of use cases for categories, written in retrospect now that they've been with us for a while. 66.167.253.200 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of the Category feature 

message: Many categories have portal material on them (see major examples in the main page template :Template:Eight portals links). Portals now have their own namespace and it seems sensible to turn those portal-like categories into normal categories where you only have the articles and subcategories that it includes, pretty much like a disambiguation shouldn't have anything else than the links to where it disambiguates. Please discuss on Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal. Jules LT 18:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories aren't portals 

message: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_10#Category:Categories. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Categories]] 

message: Right now, all 200 some-odd Catholic dioceses are in this category.  I'd like to create the 14 Regions as subcategories, then created subcategories under those for the states within the regions, and categorize the diocese in the state categories.  
Is there a reason not to do this? Or is there a better idea? --Elliskev 21:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that these fourteen regions are official, this is certainly a good idea. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States 

message: There are 196 articles in :Category:Communist parties. Would it make sense to split them by continent (Communist Parties in Africa, Communist Parties in Europe, Communist Parties in America, Communist Parties in Oceania, Communist Parties in Asia) ? -- Ze miguel 14:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been implemented. -- Ze miguel 12:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Communist parties 

message: This page does not have the instructions to set the main article.
Many editors are 'making' the main article for a category the 'main article' by using this format:
((category:category name| ))
Which organizes it at the top of the article list.
1] Instructions on this page to make an article the main article with guidelines.
2] In that, address thoughts on ((category:category name| ))
I have also seen:
((category:category name|!))
((category:category name|*))
Which I like less then:
((category:category name| ))
As the ! and * symbols can get messy.
PatHaugen 00:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the question of sub-categories: some sub-categories are best placed at the top of the list of sub-categories, and the same pattern (random ' ', '*' or '!') can be found. It would also be better to only use ' '. -- Ze miguel 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm definitely in favor of ' ' rather than '*' to move an article to the top of the list in a category. The result is much more visually appealing.--Srleffler 05:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main article for this category is ARTICLE NAME. 

message: I can't seem to find any gudiance about the order that categorization should apprear.  For example, Category:Bridges in Oregon should appear before Cat:Bridges built in 1903....and Cat:Suspension bridges should come before Cat:Bridges in Oregon.  I see a lot of misplaced categories, especially in Cat:bridges completed by date cats.   I can't see the forrest for the trees.  Cacophony 20:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  order of appearance 

message: First, I'd like to ask the people getting involved in this debate to read the archives.  This issue has come up and been discussed over and over since shortly after categories were first added to wikipedia.
Every time this come up I become more and more aware of the root of this problem.  To summarize I think the problem is that we don't have a clear definition of what a subcategory is.  It has different meanings  depending upon how it is used.  Here is the different meanings that I can think of, and examples of them:
#A hierarchical sub-grouping this is the most basic meaning of a subcategory.  If a hierarchy is thought of as a tree, than the branches of the hierarchy are just smaller sub-units of the hierarchy.  So for example, :Category:Bridges in New York is a subcategory of :Category:Bridges in the United States.  In this type of hierarchy, every article is a sibling of the same type (for example articles about bridges) and they are only listed at the bottom of the hierarchy, and there are subcategories for every possible article (for example, every state)
#A subject grouping This is a subcategory of articles that are all about or related to a single subject, for example :Category:George W. Bush.  In this category the articles are not of the same type, and the articles listed in the subcategory are not related to the higher level entries (for example, the article The Pet Goat is only indirectly related to its grandparent :Category:Methodists
#A related hierarchical grouping This happens when one hierarchy just happens to be a sub-group of another hierarchy.  Examples are :Category:Best Actor Oscar which is part of a hierarchy about Oscar winners and its parent :Category:Film actors.  Another example is :Category:Bridges in New York City which is the parent of :Category:Toll bridges in New York City.  One hierarchy of categories (toll bridges in the United States) is a subset of another hierarchy of categories (Bridges in the United States).
These three methods of sub-categorization coexist.  This is a good thing, but it leads to the problem we are discussing.  We either have to come up with a set of rules that work for all these types of categories, or create different rules for each type.  The no duplication rule works fine for the first type, but it doesn't work well for the second and third type.  Only adding the subcategory and not the topic article to a category makes sense for the second type, but not for the first and third type.  
For this reason, I think the easiest solution is to say that duplications are allowed under certain situations and topic articles and subcategories both get added to categories.  
The only downside to this is that the second type of usage may make the article cluttered with category listings.  That doesn't seem so terrible.  I like the idea of having all the parents listed.  The only problem is finding the topic category (for example, finding the link to :Category:George W. Bush.  This can be dealt with two ways.  We can make the standard to list the topic category first. and/or we can make a link to the topic category in the SEE ALSO section.  I think both would be good. 
A while ago I wrote Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, which deals with this topic. -- Samuel Wantman 10:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm not sure it's quite that simple, but I think something like this is the way to go. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm convinced that there is no one way to categorize things.  The subjects are too diverse for one magic rule that will make everything perfect.  Cacophony 07:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do you suggest?  Everything here are guidelines.  If we have a common understanding to point to, we can avoid most problems.  When the guidelines don't apply we can change them or ignore them.  I'm discussing this because I didn't like the old magic rule, and want to loosen it.  If I proceed in isolation, without the consensus of others, my changes will get reverted.  That is why I'm discussing this. -- Samuel Wantman 08:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should draft a proposed guideline, based on your ideas above, expect it to evolve a bit as others contribute to it, and see if we can forge a new consensus that there are several different types of categories that need to be thought of and worked with differently. It sounds like you may be on your way to a synthesis of two ideas that have been at war with one another since categories were introduced. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The usefulness of categories are restricted if articles are limited to one category.  It is crazy to say that Portland, Oregon should only be in :Category:Portland, Oregon.  There are few articles that only contain one category, and I think those should be expanded.  The trend has been to do this. Here is a random survey of broad articles.  Philosophy, Egypt, Gold, Roman Catholic Church, Fruit, Cat, Dog, Bicycle, Japan, God, Airport, Communism, Coffee, Tree, Tobacco, Metric system, Penguin, Fish, Vitamin, zoo,  snake, Jesus, Harvard, Israel, war, flower all contain multiple categories in addition to "their own category".  The ones that only contain "their own category" (one category that directly relates to the title) are: Automobile, The Beatles, Calendar, Hat, Computer, Art, Quebec, Family.  So the most common practice being used right now is to include a topic article (a broad subject that also has a category for the same subject) in many different categories (including a category that is the "parent" of the article in question).  The trend should be towards more categorization and away from the restrictions of heirarchies.   This needs to be defined as a wikipedia guideline.  Quebec should be in :Category:Canadian provinces and territories as well as :Category:Quebec.  Cacophony 09:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, can we stop generalizing by saying that one side or the other is "crazy"?  This seems to be a pretty evenly-divided issue so clearly neither side is crazy for their opinion.  Second, even the examples you are in favor of don't correctly follow your standard!  Egypt includes the catgory Bicontenental countries but not the category North Africa.  :Category:Egypt includes North Africa but not Bicontinental countries.  How can the article be in one set of categories but the category for the article is in a different set?  That's a perfect example of the difficulty of maintaining that standard.  You end up with duplicate work which will only be done if people are aware of it which I bet most people aren't.  Among your examples, only Philosophy is correct per your standard.  (I don't know why you included Bicycle since :Category:Bicycle and :Category:Bicycles don't even exist — that doesn't even apply to this discussion.  Same goes with :Category:God which doesn't exist but does have two articles associated). wknight94 13:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My list was ovbiously hastily put together, but thanks for going through every single one and finding the discrepancies.  If the "One category only" scheme were adopted, I don't understand how :Category:Cities in Oregon would work without containing Portland, Oregon.  I guess the solution would be to include :Category:Portland, Oregon in :Category:Cities in Oregon, but that really cripples :Category:Cities in Oregon because you have to click through two subcategories in order to find the article Portland, Oregon.  Of course, my example again is full of errors, because the example I used above contains both Portland, Oregon AND :Category:Portland, Oregon.   It seems that the "One category" camp would like categories to be heirarchetaly structured, but we aren't talking about a simple heirarchy.  The thing that I am having trouble with is seeing the benefit behind limiting categories.  I guess that attempts to simplify the article, but I think it complicates the categories.  I think that having a little bit of clutter at the bottom of the page is a small price to pay for having fully functional categories.  And besides, to change now would take a lot of uncategorizing.  Cacophony 21:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the disagreement.  I see with no trouble how limiting categories simplifies things and pulls people into a category-browsing mode which would, in turn, lead them to find articles related to the one they're looking at.  That's the purpose of categories in the first place — so people can find related articles in one expected area.  The alternative is to have the same articles show up over and over throughout the category hierarchy which would lead me to simply stop browsing.  To your other point, I don't see at all how the one-category-only scheme cripples anything at all.  It's one extra click so how is that crippling?  And, in that one extra click, you see everything related to Portland, Oregon rather than just Portland itself.  The other flaw in your logic is the idea of clicking twice to find Portland, Oregon.  You don't need categories to find a particular article.  Categories are not a search tool, they're a search-for-related-things tool.  If you want to find a particular article, like Portland, Oregon, just type Portland, Oregon in the search box.  wknight94 01:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining subcategories

message: I have started a rewrite of the Categorization page, incorporating the new guidelines above.  It seemse that sections of the page could use a little restructuring.  Anyone with suggestions or willing to help with the task, please take a look here.  Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of page 

message: Is it really a good idea to have :Category:2005 establishments and :Category:2005 disestablishments, both subcategories of :Category:2005? (There are other, similar subcats on other years.) Seems like it might be overkill to me... (Note :Category:2005 incorporations, as well.) - dcljr (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to make sense to me, and is in accordance with custom practice and policy both previous and proposed. -- Samuel Wantman 01:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishments and disestablishments 

message: A rewrite is complete.  Assuming there is no more discussion,  It will go live on January 17th.  Please take a look here.  Feel free to make any needed edits, but comments about substantial changes should go on this page.  Use the history page to see the changes.  -- Samuel Wantman 09:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version is ready 

message: I haven't carefully checked the last few "archivings" of this page, but be please aware that archiving all discussion up to the actual day that you're making the change is probably not a good idea. One should check to make sure that earlier discussions aren't ongoing, and that appropriate time has been given for recent topics to be discussed. I think a good rule of thumb is to not archive any discussion that's more recent than a couple of weeks. - dcljr (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The archiving was conversation up to about a week ago.  It included the discussion up to the implementation of the new re-write which just "went live".  I archived the page because the discussions were related to a page that was no longer being displayed.  If you read through them you might be confused about what was being discussed.  That said, I should have noted this when I archived everything.  For anyone looking for the discussion about the re-write, it is in the last archive, but the issues have been discussed since the time that categories were implemented in Wikipedia, roughly two years ago.  It makes for an interesting read. -- Samuel Wantman 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving