Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 10

message: Since getting rid of {{subst:tl|CatDiffuse)) seems to be a dead end,  I'm taking a different tact. I've been working on a new set of labels for categories that I mentioned several weeks ago on this page (see above).  These will hopefully help people understand how the categorization system works.  The examples are based on the discussion happening now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization but they would be applicable to most of the categories the way they currently exist.  I'd appreciate some feedback.  Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Category types]] 

message: Is there any way of counting the number of articles in a category without going through the whole category and multiplying the number of pages by (usually) 200? There is a bot which does this for certain categories, but not for others. To be more specific, I am a member of :WP:ALBUM and at certain times we would wish to know the exact amount of articles in :Category:Needs album infobox or :Category:Albums without cover art, for instance. Anybody come across a handy auto-process? Bubba hotep 09:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also very straightforward to do in the pywikipedia 'bot framework.  Could you say a little more about how you'd like this to happen?  Roughly how many categories would be affected, and roughly how often, for example?  Any particular form you'd want the results in?  Alai 07:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting articles in categories 

message: New users seem to have the idea that you add pages to categories by editing the category page itself.  Could we add something to the boilerplate for editing Category pages, so it tells them not to edit in an article, but to add the category wiki-text to the given article?  This would save me and many others a good deal of time in reverting mistaken edits to categories, and would therefore allow us to focus further on articles.  Please share your opinion on this idea, --Urthogie 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be anything handy already built in (like the "This is a talk page..." message when editing a talk page), but I wouldn't think it would be hard to add something that could do this.  It sounds like a reasonable idea to me.  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would I go to get this implemented?--Urthogie 04:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Enhancements are treated the same as bug reports, please see Wikipedia:Bug report. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing of categories 

message: Please contribute to the Village pump discussion started at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Categorising sections of an article. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorising sections using anchored redirects 

message: I'm considering a category or list that is going to be fairly dynamic (American soccer players by country currently playing in).  First, a suggestion of a better name is always encouraged.  Now this list/category would change fairly often, every time a player transferred.  It seems that categories are more static and as such I should use a list article for this.  Lists are certainly easier to keep up with but have the disadvantage that categories are easier for people to find, and thus have an increased chance of people maintaining.  Any suggestions or knowledge of Wikipedia precedents on such matters would be quite helpful.  Captkrob 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that either one would be nominated for deletion as not being encyclopedic. The data is dynamic, as you say, and the intersections are not ones what are generally considered encyclopedic.  But that's just my opinion. Vegaswikian 08:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I partially suspected that.  But the detail to which sports are kept track of on wikipedia (up-to-the-hour stats on thousands of players, teams, etc) seem to make the "dynamicness" of this seem almost encyclopedic by comparison.  For example, the monthly UEFA coefficient (more dynamic than player's teams) is constantly updated for each national side, club side, and league. Captkrob 14:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category vs. List question 

message: I don't know my question can be answered here, but I'll ask anyway, since this board discussed topics related to Wikipedia categories and related topics.
Is there a reason why University of Applied Sciences Stuttgart is classified in the Interior Design category, other than for advertising? The name of the school is not listed alphanumerically in this category; instead, the name appears about the category alphanumeric category listing.
From what I see in the main article for this school, the school is not solely an "interior design" school; the schools offers programs beyond interior design. So, can anyone enlighten me on this? I assumed that categories were designed for similar topics (such as interior decorating, furniture, and so on), not for routing readers to a specific school that uses the category as an means advertising to direct traffic to its article. lwalt 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interior design category for a general university??? 

message: Hi, I'd like to invite everybody here to get involved with the discussion. There currently is a confusion on what the inclusion criteria supposed to be.At the moment unrelated articles such as airline companies, rivers, mountains, towns, cities, city squares, long dissolved countries, among other things are categorized under the same category.--Cat out 05:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Kurdistan]] 

message: I removed the following:
:This article provides guidelines on creating and organizing categories. Where possible, Wikipedia categories should be kept as close as possible to Wikimedia Commons categorization schema in the main category tree and its major sub-categorizations. See the mirror page Wikipedia:Commons categories for a reference on that, and spending some time seeing if the category need has been handled on the commons is highly encouraged before creating a new category name. This will at a mininum prevent redundant category creations, or the necessity of renaming categories on either sisters WP:CFD forum to maintain compatibility. 
:While the two sisters do not share the same category needs in full, the task of organizing millions of media pages into a system of findable groupings probably has a solution already in place. All other language projects link via interwiki tagging to one or both category systems, so commonality is highly desireable—it saves work for a lot of people speaking many native tounges.
:There is an ongoing effort to interlink matching categories, and this is simplified when these two large repositories of categories match as close as possible. The two are very similar since both (and indeed most sister projects categorization systems) were devised on the foundations Meta-Wiki recommendations as part of it's work co-ordinating across foundation projects and language projects. In some areas, that top-down direction is excellent, in others, the effort did not anticipate interlingual and ambiguity of names issues. The communal experience is clear concise unambiguous names, even when longer, are the best choices. Many redundant new categories can be prevented by searching for keywords that might be in an alternate phrase before creating a category.
I don't think the beginning is the place for this.  While it might be a goal to have some consistancy between wikiprojects, we are quite far from that now, and I'm not sure that Commons has any insight to categorization that is superior to what we are doing here.  Some languages are categorized very differently from English (German is a notable example).  So before we all start copying commons (or any other project) there should be some more discussion.  Pending some more discussion, I think it best not included. -- Samuel Wantman 07:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where Commons (a repository of free content images, sound and other multimedia files) categories would have much relevance at all to English Wikipedia categories; they serve different purposes, contain different kinds of stuff.  Furthermore, if anything, Commons should model its categories after Wikipedia's categories, not vice-versa.  It should be driven by our better discussed, better developed, and more comprehensive categorization schemes. For some strange reason, the talk page for the copy of the Commons categorization page, Wikipedia talk:Commons categories, redirects to this talk page.  So consider this my comment with respect to both of them.  Gene Nygaard 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: A lot of people seem confused about tags versus categorization. I've noticed this in discussions, based on people's arguments; at least one argument where someone explicitly stated that categories were tags; and just the way people use categories (see, e.g., :Category:Shelley.  I propose that we need an FAQ that explains this.  User:SamuelWantman has laid out a bigger proposal for Wikipedia:Category types which would address this, but getting consensus on that proposal seems hard.  In the meantime, a simple explanation with examples of tags versus classification (WP categorization) might solve a lot of the problems.  I could start drafting but thought I'd wait & see if someone had done this already. <g> --lquilter 18:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "tags" & tagging versus categorization 

message: I thought there was something in one of the categorization guidelines regarding the issue below, but since I can't seem to find it I'll ask here to see if someone knows where to look or to see if it's something that possibly should be added to this guideline.
All editors are technically supposed to only be using verified information for article changes.  That includes categorization, meaning that as a rule articles should only be categorized using verified information contained within the article itself.  As an example, if an article never verifiably mentions that someone is a practicing lawyer, they shouldn't be categorized under :Category:Lawyers .  So even though it's possible Shaquille O'Neal might have passed his bar exam, since his article makes no mention of him practicing law he shouldn't be categorized as a lawyer.  Another example from a recent cfd is that even though Margaret Thatcher obviously publically commented on just about every air disaster and terrorist attack during her political life, she shouldn't be included in :Category:Airliner bombings or :Category:Pan Am Flight 103 since her article doesn't discuss those issues.
So, although this appears to be common sense and based in large part on the principles of WP:V, is it worth including a short section in this guideline that says "Articles should only be categorized using verifiable, referenced information from the article itself. Do not categorize articles based on information outside the article, such as unverified information, speculation and trivial facts not notably included within the article"?  If this already appears in a guideline somewhere, could someone include a link? Or if you don't think this would be a good addition or have a question or problem, I'm interested to hear any feedback. Dugwiki 18:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be an important & useful feature to add. I'm not sure about the wording. Most of what you describe is about WP:V but "trivial facts not notably included" strays from Verifiability to Notability. (We should also be talking about Notability, of course, but just in trying to keep your current proposal narrowly tailored to the problem.) --lquilter 22:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline to use information in article for categorization? 

message: What is the procedure for moving a category or sub-category?  Does it need to go through Cfd?--Vbd 08:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Affirmative!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you mean recategorizing a sub-category from one category to another, that would not need to be discussed at CfD.  If there is disagreement, it can be discussed on the talk page of the sub-category. -- Samuel Wantman 11:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Samuel.  Recategorizing a sub-cat from one cat to another is exactly what I have in mind.--Vbd 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes; sorry to overlook this possibility. Since renaming involves "moving" a category (as with renaming articles), I thought this is what you meant. Regards, David (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving categories? 

message: Is there a way of listing all the articles which belong to two (or more) groups:
e.g. composers born in 1947 (ie. are in [category:composers] and in [category:1947 births])Chendy 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a "list comparer" feature in AutoWikiBrowser. –Pomte 00:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Categories/Shared attributes 

message: What is the correct way to deal with them is it 
#O'toole, Anton
#Otoole, Anton
#O toole, Anton(Gnevin 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're specifying the sort order, so how do you want them to sort? (1) makes all the O'anythings sort before any other name starting with O.  (2) sorts them as if the ' is not there.  (3) sorts them like 1, but unless everyone else does the same thing they'll probably be haphazardly mixed.  My phonebook (in the US) does #2. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name with a ' in them 

message: A question has come up recently regarding an actor with dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship.  He was previously categorised as a "Canadian expat actor in the U.S." Then he became a U.S. citizen, which means he stopped being an expat.  Does his past status as an expat mean that he should still be included in :Category:Canadian expatriate actors in the United States?  Are there guidelines on retroactive application of categories?--Vbd | (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking categories aren't supposed to differentiate between "current" and "former" status.  So if he was an expat in the past, then he would still probably be categorized as an expat.  Dugwiki 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between an immigrant and an expat is determined by citizenship status.  Once he becomes a U.S. citizen, he is no longer an expat.  He can then be categorised as an "American actor," but it seems odd to also continue to classify him by his former status as an expat.--Vbd | (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything in the definition of "expatriate" which would  suggest that an expat who becomes a citizen of the  place they've moved to ceases to be an expatriate. An expatriate is someone who either resides in a foreign  country or has renounced their native  country.  john k 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroactive application of a category 

message: Could we display the total number of articles in a category?  For instance, it would be nice to know the total number of disambig pages.  This total might include or exclude articles in subcategories, or maybe we could get both counts. --Smack (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interested users, please see WP:VPT#Counting articles in categories. --Smack (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total article count 

message: I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. From the top level down to local neighbourhoods. There has been some overlapping and various mis-routings. It's been interesting looking at it all. However, there appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. And these can operate side by side quite usefully. The by region isn't a problem. But the by size has become difficult because User:Hmains wishes to use the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions  to fit his own understanding of the term -
. Community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - . I did some sorting, placing the cat Human communities under Human geography. Human communities splitting into Urban geography and Rural geography. And those splitting into appropriate sized communities - cities, districts, neighbourhoods, villages, settlements, etc. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do people think? Is settlement an acceptable term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps. Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices (apart from populated places of course!)? I have started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, but no response as yet. I have left this message on the talk pages of active Geography Project members. And now I have discovered this page. Is this the right place to raise this issue?  SilkTork 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not sure I like using "settlement" as the catchall term, I somewhat grudgingly acknowledge that I don't think any other better term has been suggested (at least not one that didn't have it's own shortcomings). Regarding usage of the term, I might note that the United Nations Human Settlements Programme apparently subsumes the entire range of human habitat. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice requested 

message: I appreciate the concerns of those that want to make categories easy to create while not encumbering the voluntary feel of our wiki.  I ask everyone for suggestions as to how to create the minimum mechanism possible to stem the proliferation of poorly conceived categories.  I have no desire for a bureaucracy complicated with rules and procedures.  I can imagine many different ways of creating a new system for creating categories such:
* A way to distinguish between "encyclopedic" categories and user categories.  Perhaps they could be in different colors, or listed in different sections (I'd call the user category "tags").  Anyone could add user categories and they'd only be removed for the most egregious of offenses.  "Encyclopedic" categories would be promoted from the user categories after discussion.
* Allow users to create categories after they have been approved by some mechanism.  This would be an interim step between general user and admin.
* Restrict category creation to admins.
* Restrict category creation and deletion to a categorization WikiProject.
* Restrict category creation, but have a simpler way than outlined above to create a category.  This could be a simple quick review process (discussion would only be necessary if something is questionable, all others would be created speedily).  The review process could be a centralized page, or by asking any admin.
* Modify the software so that all empty categories do not appear in the categorization hierarchy.  This way pages could be created for an entire hierarchy with a single request, but the categories would only appear as subcategories when they are populated.
* A software modification so that redlinks for categories never appear in the category listings of articles.  This would mean that by deleting a category page an entire category would disappear.  Recreating the category would restore all the links from the articles so categorized.  This change would mean that creating and deleting categories could happen with a single edit.  Bots could remove redlinks from any articles that have been red for a certain amount of time (a month?).  This would move the system to being more of a pure wiki system.  This would make it harder to make categories because there would not be a red link to follow when an article is put in a non-existent category.  To get to the category, you'd have to type the name in the search box or follow some other procedure.
Any other ideas?   Wikis are great for collaboration.  It was not my intention to present a fully formed proposal and have everyone state their opinions pro and con, but to collaboratively come up with solutions to problems that can find consensus. -- Samuel Wantman 10:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think category creation should be restricted to administrators or pseudo-administrators.  I would also suggest, if possible, modifying the software to show more than 200 articles in a category at one time.  I also suggest somehow incorporating this category intersection tool (with credit to the tool's creator, Duesentrieb) into Wikipedia.  With this tool, people can then look up odd cross-sections that are impractical for categorization.  Dr. Submillimeter 11:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm currently working on a policy/action proposal that will hopefully make categorization a lot easier. As soon as I hammer it out into a fully understandable essay, I'll post it for discussion. --Hemlock Martinis 00:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A multi-leveled approach might be best. Increase the time an editor has to be registered before they can create categories, say to a month or so. That would take care of overenthusiastic but ignorant newcomers. Throw in a mechanism to turn off category creation on established accounts, say as  an admin function handled at AN/I. That would mitigate the cycle of blocking somebody only for them to return as a sock, because they can still edit articles. Couple those two with a bot that removes redlinked categories, no waiting, so modifications made to articles aren't perpetuated. I'm sure there are other ideas that could be incorporated as well. CovenantD 06:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: None of these proposals are necessary or acceptable. The basic premise that too many categories are created is the opposite of the real problem - I am disappointed that the best part of two years after first started doing my bit for the category system it remains in a highly incomplete state. Anything that involves creating more complex hierarchies of users will just create more politics and induce some people to concentrate on enhancing their status rather than improving Wikipedia. The idea of giving yet more privileges to admins is just offensive. In so far as there is any issue at all at present, and it's a very minor matter that there is a backlog on categories for discussion, that is the admins fault, and the idea that the way to respond to it is to give more rights to admins and take away some of mine, when I have created thousands of categories, not one of which has been deleted that I know of, shows just how unappreciative some people are to the contributions made to the project by non-admins.  CalJW 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there other alternatives?

message: I recently came across the categories :Category:Free computer algebra systems, which surprised me, because it seems to be the combination of two orthogonal categories, :Category:Free software and :Category:Computer algebra systems.  In fact, there is a whole tree under :Category:Free software of subcategories of free software by domain.  It seems like a really bad idea to combine orthogonal categories like this.  Should this have a subcategory :Category:GPL-licensed computer algebra software written in Lisp or :Category:Computer algebra software on Sourceforge?  How about :Category:Arabic-speaking constitutional republics?  Any chance we can change this? --Macrakis 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass-tag them for CfD? Xiner (talk, email) 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is done all the time for people categories: for instance :Category: Russian-American Jews is a subcat of :Category:Jewish Americans, :Category:Russian-Americans, and :Category:Russian Jews. I don't think it's always a bad idea. —Ashley Y 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the real problem here is that we currently have no tools (as far as I know) for exploring the Category hierarchy and looking for the intersection of two categories, e.g. :Category:Asian countries and :Category:Constitutional monarchies rather than having a non-orthogonal category :Category:Constitutional monarchies in Asia, which would have subcategories :Category:Constitutional monarchies in East Asia, etc. Is anyone working on such tools? --Macrakis 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthogonality of categories 

message: This page is 265k and needs to be archived. This code will have Werdnabot archive every 60 days, which seems about right for this page. 

:I just archived 2/3 of the page. -- Samuel Wantman 11:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Previously, I mooted some categorisation issues relating to China, here.  I won't pretend there was exactly a clear-cut outcome, and since then there's been renewed edit-warring, a large dose of arbcom apathy, and a general lack of resolution either way.  Currently, the stub categories do one thing (or did until the last round of reversion), and the permcats do another.  I suggest we either:  create additional permanent categories for "Mainland China" such-and-such;  or delete the MC stub cats in favour of their PRC parents.  If you have a preference either way, or a meta-preference for consistency one way or the other (or for a cessation of edit-hostilities along some sort of defined line, at the worst), please contribute your thoughts at SFD.  Alai 02:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much Alai for bringing the matter to discussion. But please let us know if you'd actually read the information posted in the discussion archived. — Instantnood 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China categorisation: People's Republic/Mainland revisited 

message: Please see Talk:Illuminated manuscript. We are discussing a categorization scheme and are just about ready, but there is one last issue that needs settling. So I am requesting help from editors familiar with categorization. What it boils down to: should we have a :Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts to group the existing 3 subcategories (Psalters, Gospel Books, and Illuminated Bibles) and the literally hundreds of other Christian illuminated manuscripts (and possibly create new subcategories for the Books of Hours, Prayer books, and apocalypses). Does this create an unnecessary layer of hierarchy, and the Christian subcats (Psalters, Gospel Books, etc) belong in the main "Illuminated manuscripts" category? The main argument for the former is there are a lot of Christian illuminated manuscripts and subcategories that logically should be grouped together to clear up the clutter from the parent cat. The main argument for the latter is Christian works like the Book of Kells are the most notable Illuminated manuscript, so they shouldn't by buried in subcats, but should instead be as close to the parent cat as possible. See the talk page for further discussion. I support the former, so people be aware of my possible bias in posting this. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting 3rd opinions for illuminated manuscripts 

message: Ok, the variable  sets our sortkey, but is there a corresponding variable that templates can use instead of , such as something like ? The idea being here that  would display what  is set to on the calling article or just use  on it's own. I bring this up because templates don't inherit the page sorting. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your question, so apologies in advance. Do you want  to be equal to the sortkey defined by ? If so, that wouldn't be needed as  sets the sortkey for any category without a sortkey (ie Category:Foo not Bar) even if the category is defined in a template. Is there a sort key defined for the category defined in the templates in question? mattbr 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tld|DEFAULTSORT}} question 

message: I've been dealing with some categories like :Category:Fairchild family, where most members have the same surname. Sorting by surname tends to overload one index, F in this case. User 139.55.214.153 has set these pages up with the sort as *, which puts all the names under the * index. This is a nice idea, except they should be appear in sort order there.
So here is a proposal for a convention: In cases where a category is chiefly populated with names having the same surname (as with the family cats), these should be sorted into the asterisk index, then by given name, like this: 
    Category:Fairchild family|*David 
    Category:Fairchild family|*Grandison 
    Category:Fairchild family|*James 
This places the important members, i.e. with the target surname, first in the list, and then sorted by given name. Sorting by surname places these folks in different places in every cat, depending on the spelling of the surname.
What say y'all? -dav4is 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say no.  You'd just be overloading the * header rather than overloading some letter, no improvement whatsoever.  Just sort everybody in that category given-name first.  In other words, for your examples, Category:Fairchild family|David Fairchild for example.  And also by first name even for those who might not have that surname in the name of their Wikipedia article. Most surname catgories are already sorted that way. Gene Nygaard 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting names in categories: special considerations, a proposal 

message: Back in February, the decision was made that all "Actors by series" categories would eventually be removed. The reasoning given in that CfD made perfect sense when you get down to it, but given how popular that cat type was, I see it as one that will be created again and again. This brings up the following: since there are many other cats not allowed that may not directly violate any specific guidelines outside of a CfD, should a section added to this article to address those category-types as they arise to make it more clear? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization is pretty much intended to cover this sort of thing.  In fact, Performers by Performance is one of the sections, and the topic of actors by series was discussed in the talk archives.  WP:OCAT seems to cover a lot of the common problem categories. Dugwiki 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Categories that should not be created" section? 

message: I think it would be a good idea to add a description of the use of the  magic word to the section which currently describes the use of . It's useful when categorization is done with a template (such as a WikiProject notice) placed on talk pages. This prevents all the talk pages from being sorted into one huge "T" section, since they will share the format "Talk:Somearticle" . If there aren't any objections, I'm happy to add that description myself. -Tobogganoggin talk 01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I added a section about this (here), then noticed it has already been mentioned at Help:Category. I apologize for the duplication. I'm leaving it in, but if anyone would like to revert my edits, have at it - I won't take offense. -Tobogganoggin talk 22:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful magic word not yet mentioned at [[Wikipedia:Categorization]] 

message: I have a question about the citations required to insert a Cat.  I know it might be answered in the archives, but.... maybe someone would be kind enough to give a quick answer?
Do you need to have sources for a Cat the same as you do for other parts of an article?
I am currently having trouble on the Parapsychology page.  I have good sources which call parapsychology a science.  There are also some sources for calling it pseudoscience (though not nearly as WP:V as for calling it science).  However, some editors are deleting the cat:science, and putting the cat:pseudoscience in.  This seems to be only because they believe parapsychology is a pseudoscience.  Since the sources for calling it science are much better, I think it should be either 1) in the science cat, 2) in  both the pseudoscience and science Cat, or 3) in neither (example sources for calling it science: James Randi, Ray Hyman James Alcock, and the  AAAS; many of these are skeptics of the subject.  Example source for calling it pseudoscience: skepdic.com) Any enlightenment on this issue would be appreciated.  Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One does not need sources for categories per se; the article should imply the categorization, not the other way around. As for the parapsychology question, that would probably be more appropriate on that article's talk page. --Hemlock Martinis 01:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Hello. Is there a way or procedure to move a category? The move tab does not appear on the category page. For example, I created :Category:Early Middle Japanese. It is for texts of the period so I would like to rename it :Category:Early Middle Japanese texts. I could create a new category and nominate the old one for deletion, but I figured I would ask first. Regards. Bendono 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful - Wikipedia:Category_renaming#Speedy_renaming_and_speedy_merging SchmuckyTheCat 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving a category 

message: There seems to be a dichotomy between those who are looking to hone categories into encyclopedic taxonomies and those who are looking for a tagging system in which they can do keyword searches.  The more we push at removing overcategorization, the more there is a need for a simpler tagging system.  If we can answer that need, it might make everyone happier.  Towards that end, I've written up a proposal to do keyword searching based on wikilinks.  Please take a look.  I'm calling it Wikipedia:Link intersection.  Comments would be appreciated.  Thanks, -- Samuel Wantman 06:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links and categories 

message: We have attempted to organize a categorization department in WP Films (currently hosting about 22.000 articles). The guidelines are not yet in a stable form, as discussions keep bringing out factors that create needs to modify them. One of the most important decisions has been to categorize all film articles primarily in four all-inclusive categories, ie Category:(Year) films, Category:(Country) films, Category:(Language) films and Category:(Studio/production company) films. Then we have the most important but also most diverse (and sometimes considered "subjective") categorization by film genres. It is beyond any doubt that genre plays a central role in films. Yet a film more often than not belongs to several genres and often to several cross-genre categories. The four primary film categories are used also as our primary film indexes. They are often huge, but very useful (at least for project purposes). Now we have the problem of an editor who decided to take films out of the parent "Country" category and dissipate them in genre cross-categories with the argument that an article belonging to a subcategory shouldn't also be in the parent. This creates the following problems: 1. the country-films category index is not any more usable, 2. we will have to recategorize the articles by the parent category (to solve 1) inspite of the general rule that an article souldn't be both in a child and parent category, 3) if this cross-categorization spreads to more areas we will have a serious problem of overcategorization soon. We are open to opinions and assistance. Hoverfish Talk 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem in film categories 

message: 1. Your "category" article does not begin with a definition
2. I can't see anywhere you have said how to display these categories
3. Example was "Golden Gate Bridge" but I looked there and where is category displayed
4. This comes after "editing info", mention should be made that Categorization is activity     mainly for article creation people
5. Is category creation affected by same syndrome as the old cross-posting problem of news groups? Also today in groups like Gather? Categorization is one area where "let a hundred flowers" is NOT a good idea.  --Myles325a 12:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be looking for Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ. --Hemlock Martinis 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is confusing 

message: General guidelines #8 states:
: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.
This is a good guideline, but there is a highly disturbing trend of groups of editors making up attack categories in order to push a POV and simply discounting anyone who objects as "irrelevant" to their agenda.  These groups of editors are violating neutrality by always trying to categorize various articles about the religious texts of major world religions as "Fiction" or "Mythology". This would appear to be blatantly against the spirit of the guideline, but they say that only their POV counts, while the views of actual adherents of said world religions or texts do not count and are relatively insignificant, therefore they say it is "neutral" and innocent for wikipedia to officially endorse labeling major world religions and beliefs as "fiction" or "mythology" despite all controversy this might generate, and despite the polemic history of such language. What can be done about this? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please link to some of these "attack categories"? We might be better able to understand the problem then. --Hemlock Martinis 05:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly object to the way that a cadre of editors has foisted the controversial category: :Category:Mythological ships, this category was invented two days ago solely for the purposes of attacking the article Noah's Ark by a group of editors who spend practically all their time on the talk page, instead of debating the article content all they do is scoff at anyone who believes the Biblical account and try to engage editors in debate over whether or not it could have happened.  I have pointed out to them many times that it is not wikipedia's job to decide if the Biblical doctrine is true or false, nobody is asking them to believe it, but they are asking nobody to believe it and see wikipedia as a platform to effect change in people's firm beliefs. Although this small group has argued with many editors who point out that all Churches still consider Genesis part of the Bible last time anyone checked, they are always arguing that it is fictitious and trying to classify it as mythology, usually starting with this article before they move on to others. They are entitled to their POV but not to violate the careful balance of neutrality that we strive so hard to achieve here.  It is not wikipedia's role to take a stand on whether or not the Scriptures are true or false.  It should stay neutral and take no position on this whatsoever, leaving it up to the reader. They are using semantic arguments to state that the word "mythological" is intended to signify something other than false and is therefore neutral, but the word has an ugly history of being used to attack freedom of religion, and it will never be acceptable.  Any category that labels a modern religious text of a significant, huge world religion, as "mythology" be it the Quran or the Bible or any other, is pushing a POV and is controversial. But their tactics are to deny anyone the right to dispute their action, because they say anyone who disagrees with them is "insignificant", even the Pope. Wikipedia declaring the religious text of Christians, Muslims, Hindus or any other large religion with millions of followers "mythology" will NEVER be neutral and will NEVER be acceptable.  Where can I go to protest the controversial nature of this categorisation??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to debate the categorization of an article, that discussion should take place on that article's talk page, or in this case, Talk:Noah's Ark. The category seems to have merit, since even should Noah's Ark be removed there are a number of boats from mythologies that are listed. --Hemlock Martinis 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have seen the articles for several historical ships the creator first put in the 'mythological ship' cat to justify his definition, like U.S.S. Constitution and Mary Celeste... they all got quickly removed, because people regard 'mythological' as meaning 'fictional' -- proving my point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's look at your arguments logically. First off, you talk about a "cadre of editors", for which I direct you to this essay. You then go on to claim that this cabal is doing the mythological changes on a massive scale, yet you provide only one category with only one example, thus defeating that argument. Next, you claim that there's a silent majority of editors (which is an insupportable claim in and of itself) who "point out that all Churches still consider Genesis part of the Bible last time anyone checked", but that "point" furthers a systemic bias in favor of Christianity, Judaism and Islam and against other major religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism. In short, you're making a big deal out of one categorization that could have been resolved with a simple discussion instead of posting warnings here that claim a massive conspiracy of editors bent on categorizing all religions as mythologies is ganging up on you. I urge you to relax and try to argue future debates with more civility and less accusations. --Hemlock Martinis 04:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that is not what I am saying at all; you have completely mischaracterized my position.  Let me try to explain it to you again, since you have me all wrong.  I did not say, and have never said, that a "silent majority" of editors is supporting me.  That would be a ridiculous statement.  There is a very vocal majority of editors that has been clamoring for a very long time, to have this Biblical subject officially declared "mythology" through the use of categories.  I have been the principal editor arguing that this is objectionable and a p.o.v., and indeed the very kind of polemical abuse that the NPOV policy was carefully crafted to KEEP from happening.  I have not been the only editor making this point.  This has been going on for at least two years.  At one point, we had editors who were indeed going around tagging a wide variety of Biblical articles as "Mythology", causing massive revert wars far and wide.  I could dig up all the diffs for you, but just check the contributions for one of their old accounts, User:FestivalOfSouls, to see the massive scope of the articles they have edit-warred in order to call Mythology. I am in favor of NO BIAS.  I don't want ANY of the major world religions with significant followings today to be called "mythology" by wikipedia.  I do not want Wikipedia to declare Buddhism mythology. I don't want Wikipedia to declare Hinduism mythology.  I don;t want Wikipedia to declare Islam mythology.  I don't want WIkipedia to declare Judaism mythology.  I don't want Wikipedia to declare Christianity mythology.  Word choice is very important.  I have explained time and again that wikipedia should not be in the business of declaring whose beliefs are mythology and whose beliefs are not mythology.  It should quote the opinions of others, but not present those opinions as fact.  It seems to me that this is all something VERY VERY BASIC, and the entire REASON that we even have such policies in the first place, but the nature of these editors is to congregate just outside of wherever the policy line is drawn, looking for any way or loophole to flout it if they possibly can, since in the long run after all, that is EXACTLY what they want wikipedia to do. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial categorizing 

message: I have been trying to diffuse :Category:Caribbean, and have found that a lot of the articles in the root cat are port cities on the Caribbean Sea but not in a "Caribbean country" (i.e. cities in Mexico or Panama). :Category:Port cities is currently sorted only by continent/region; there is a :Category:Port cities in the Caribbean, which is used for cities in Caribbean countries only. I'm thinking of creating :Category:Port cities on the Caribbean Sea to tie all the Caribbean Sea port cities together, what do you think? jwillburtalk 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port cities by body of water 

message: Template:Popcat has always irritated me.  It more or less states the obvious.  Almost all categories need more articles (except the very large ones).  I've never really seen any value in having this template, so I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 21.  Feel free to agree or disagree with me.  Dr. Submillimeter 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Popcat nominated for deletion 

message: I thought those reading this page should be aware of this, this and this - not really sure what is going on, as the language is over my head, but just thought people would be interested. Carcharoth 09:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories stuff 

message: has been developed to track categories that should remain relatively empty, and to advise editors to not categorize pages under them. See the motivation at Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#Parent categories. –Pomte 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking parent categories 

message: This is not so much a question about a category more about the contents of a category. 
Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games there is a discussion going on  which has two opposing viewpoints.
One side says that it is OK for a game to be listed in multiple Year X Video Games categories because if the game was, for example, released in Japan in 1990 and then the rest of the World in 1991 then it should have an entry in both year categories. Some then take this argument a step further and say that if a game was released on a different games platform then that year should be added too, and if it was re-released as a mobile phone game in 2005 then that should also be added. Now that old games are being made available for download on new consoles with systems like Virtual Console some people want 2007 added to a game's article. Some games could end up in both the 1982 Video Games and 2007 Video Games categories at the same time. A bad example of this is this  version of the Castlevania article.
The opposing viewpoint is that the Year X Video Game categories should follow the year category format of all other Wikipedia Arts based subjects and have just a single year. Movies list a single original year for the first release location, as do Music and TV.
That is the situation. Opinions would be gratefully received? - X201 11:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should think that just the year of first release would be sufficient. Tim! 11:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Tim!. --After Midnight 0001 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the UK? It's not the "first year" for that region. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True but the same could be said for books published on different dates in different countries, and films released in different territories. Tim! 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Far less of a similar situation - this is the en.wiki, meaning we would only have to cater to English countries' release dates. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't have anything to do with it. All that means is that the articles are written in English. We cover any subject, regardless of cultural origin. Notable is notable. But in response to the original question, someobdy just asked that same sort of question with regards to record album release dates. My response was to say that the first release date was the most important because that's when the product was completed. After that the date of release in the band's home country could also be considered significant. Beyond that, additional release dates would only be proper to include in the text of the article - not in places intended as summaries or navigational aids, like infoboxes or categories. In particular, it diminishes the usefulness of the categories to include every item in six different year categories. -Freekee 04:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple year categories 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Categories are different from articles. -- Kendrick7talk 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soliciting [[WP:Essays|WP:Essay]] feedback 

message: I've been following a general rule in cfd and afd, and it seems to be a reasonable practice so far, that you should only use a category in an article if the article itself provides some verification that it belongs in that category.  For example, you shouldn't categorize someone under :Category:Lawyers unless the article talks about the person being a lawyer.  This rule of thumb follows directly from the principles of verification and neutral point of view.  If an article doesn't provide evidence that it belongs in a category, then it's not verifying the placement is accurate and objective.  Additionally, by asking for articles to show evidence for each of their categories, you help avoid placing articles in otherwise tangential and largely irrelevant categories that have little to do with the subject (such as labelling someone who earned a law degree but never practiced it as a "lawyer", even if such a label might technically in some sense be true.)
To that end I inserted a bullet point that reads as follows:
An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories.  Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belong there.  For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or organization members or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate.
Please feel free to discuss, reword or revert as desired. I'm pretty sure most of us agree on the general principle I'm trying to get across, but I'm sure my phrasing can be improved, and there's the off-chance I'm wrong about the principle having consensus (hopefully it does). Dugwiki 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably makes sense, but I have seen many situations where stubs were categorized with non-trivial categories before the text was added.  There seems to be a value to this because if let's say an actor stub is categorized as an actor before the article mentions it, it is more likely that it will be looked at by people interested in acting.  This "pre-mature" categorization may help stubs develop into articles.  On the other hand, it is not difficult to add the major information to the stub, when you add the categorization.  So  if we notice that the text is missing for a major categorization it makes more sense to add the information to the stub than to remove the category. -- Samuel Wantman 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with temporary category additions to stubs.  That's why I worded the paragraph above with the qualifier "normally", since there are some reasonable exceptions.  The main snag is that temporary additions can turn into permanent ones if editors stop paying attention to improving the article, and that can mean some categories turning out to have no verification in some stub articles.  So ideally it's better to add the information to the article at the same time you add the category.  Even if the information isn't yet verified, you can add a "citation needed" tag to it as a flag that it needs to be checked. Dugwiki 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added bullet point recommending avoiding categorizing without verification in article 

message: The paragraph beginning with "You may see some inconsistencies when first creating the category" no longer seems relevant.  Would someone else be able to back up my assertion that redlink categories are a non-issue?  Is the "manual creation" aspect still true? --AlastairIrvine 07:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your question.  Category pages, the text that appears above category listings, still need to be manually created.  Until they are created, the category links remain red.  Red links, wherever they appear, indicate pages that need to be created.  The point of the paragraph is to encourage creation of a category page at the same time articles are categorized. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Look before you leap" is inaccurate 

message: Please can someone take a look at :Category:Spy films and see if they can see why baseball players are turing up in there? Thanks, Mallanox 13:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation problem 

message: As a completely new user it is slightly confusing when one it told that one can "put" an article in a category. There is nothing technically or grammatically wrong describing it as such, but it implies that one might be performing some kind of placement operation (like putting a file in a directory). However, this is not what is done at all. One is declaring that an article is to be included in one or more categories. I think one could more clearly describe it as categorizing an article.
I suggest changing the subtitle "How to put an article into categories" to "How to categorize an article". (The same put verb is also used in Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Wikipedia_links%29)
Another area of potential confusion is the first sentence of which states "Adding an article to a category is as simple as editing the article and adding a link to the category." This is confusing because "adding a link to the category" is used in Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Wikipedia_links%29 to mean exactly the opposite where is says "...to make a link to a Category page..." one does:
::Category:Astrophysics
but here we are categorizing, as in:
:Category:Astrophysics
I think the sentence would be much clearer as:
"Categorizing an article is simply performed by editing it to include a category declaration."
If people think this makes sense I would be happy to try an make these changes myself, but as an absolute beginner I would cheerfully defer to a more experienced editor.
--Nsmith999 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think calling it a "link" to the category is more confusing when new users get into a situation where they would want to link a category. "Categorizing" should be just as easy to understand and it's always good to avoid ambiguous language. –Pomte 03:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for the feedback. As nobody has objected I'll make the change.--Nsmith999 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Hi Vegaswikian, It looks like I got my edit in only a few seconds before your comment. My rational for using categorizing rather than linking or attaching is that categorizing is less overloaded verb, and this is better because it is it is less likely that someone will make an incorrect assumption as to its meaning (which is fully explained later in the article). Linking and attaching are terms that tend to carry with them a meaning from Graph_%28mathematics%29, and while a category hierarchy can of course be viewed as a graph, I think the operation that we are describing here is more declarative, as in "I declare I am a believer" rather then "I link myself to the believers" etc. Also, as we also talk of cataloging a book, perhaps we can usefully talk of categorizing an article which is a very similar operation. Nevertheless, this is not my field of expertise and so I'm more than happy to be corrected, and I thank you for your comment. --Nsmith999 06:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To "put" an article in a category 

message: There's been some talk at the classical music project page about creating single article catagories that can never be expanded (like this one being mentioned a few times), to help seperate scope and other reasons. While it may look like I'm against it and trying to 'rally support', I'm not really, it's more that I'm curious what people here thing about it all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a category for Beethoven operas is not outside of categorization policy.  This situation is specifically mentioned in the guidelines, and there are long standing examples of this happening elsewhere such as :Category:Albums by artist.  That example is mentioned at the start of the categorization guidelines and  :Category:Songs by artist is mentioned as an exception to the small category overcategorization guideline.  There is no reason to argue about this.  It is OK, not a problem, and follows current policy and guidelines.  --☑ SamuelWantman 07:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so it's ok, because it's part of a subdivision, and isn't also on the parent category. That makes sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single/Few article catagories 

message: See :Category:National Football League staff templates.  I've never seen this before, but before I nominate it for deletion, are we now putting templates into categories?  Corvus cornix 21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As navigational templates are useful, a category of them is useful for navigation and for maintenance. See :Category:Template categories and the parent category of that one you're concerned with. –Pomte 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  That's why I checked.  Thanks.  Corvus cornix 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizing templates 

message: Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Categorizing redirects, I've started a proposal at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects and would like community input and help to edit the proposal and see if it is acceptable. Please discuss on its talk page, and suggest other places to get input. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal - [[Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects]] 

message: When and where does one link to categories in article namespace, if ever?  How bout navboxes et al?  Just curious, MrZaiustalk 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In navboxes such as , it is useful for "Related articles" to link to the eponymous category since the navbox can't contain every single page in the category. Other than navboxes, I've seen categories linked with "See also", for example at Toronto#Tourism. –Pomte 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "See also" has been the customary place to link to related categories.  Of course there is no need to do this if the article is already in the category. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When and where to link to Cats? 

message: Why is it that capital letters always come before lower case letters in category sorting? And why do all accented letters come after all non-accented letters? E.g., in :category:Egypt stubs, TEData would come before Tâb if I hadn't piped TEdata to Tedata, and piped Tâb to Tab. I.e., the default order of the four characters involved is:
#E
#a
#e
#â
I'd prefer:
#a/â
#E/e
Comments?
:This isn't a policy, it is a technical thing.  If a category is not piped, the sorting follows the unicode order as you describe above.  A better order can be obtained by using the "pipe trick".  I am unaware of any way around this.  I suspect to make this automatic would involve some programming.  Each language would need to have a map for unicode that would be used for sorts.  This could be brought up at the technical village pump.  There also might be something already in the works.  You'd have to check the bug report to find out. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat sorting - capital and accented letters 

message: When I add a Category to an article and preview my edit, I never see that category in the preview. Am I doing something wrong or is this a small problem with the MetaWiki software? Thanks Urdna 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're just not scrolling down far enough - They show up for me, using a close-to-stock Monobook theme. MrZaiustalk 05:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wondered the same when I started out.  I suspect this is almost universal among newcomers. Is there a bug report on this?  The categories should be at the bottom of the preview above the edit window, not the bottom of the page. --☑ SamuelWantman 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find a bug report for this so I submitted one Urdna 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories in previews? 

message: Does anything in the 'topic category rule' section of :Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories or any other rule justify what has recently been done to :Category:States of the United States where all 50 states' articles are now directly included in the category in addition to the original the 50 states' categories which was the purpose of the category.  To me, this is misuse of the category rules (but the rules are not clear) and in any case, unhelpful to WP as it negates the purpose of categories.  Hmains 00:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My take would be the opposite -- the articles should be included, because they are actual states.  On the other hand, the categories really should not be included, because they include many things which are not states (nor even directly related to states).  I think I'm on the losing side of this one though. -- Visviva 02:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with both the categories and the articles being here.  Usually my take is like Visviva, and if anything it is the categories that don't belong.  In this case it seems useful to have both.  The only thing that seems not to belong is the templates.  I'd get rid of those. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  double level categorization 

message: I've been putting the  key at the top of pages, on the assumption that it will then work for all categories on the page. However, I've noticed some editors then move it to the bottom of the page, just above explicit Categorys. Is there a preference either way?--Rossheth | Talk to me 11:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only ever seen it immediately above the categories, presumably on the basis that that's what "DEFAULTSORT" affects and so the two should be together.  It's then easier to see whether or not there is a DEFAULTSORT tag in the article, and so avoids having another editor adding a second, possibly conflicting (e.g. some names are Surname Firstname, and so don't need a tag really) DEFAULTSORT tag immediately above the categories.  Bencherlite 12:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I've been putting it at the top is you might get a situation like this (for example):...Category:fooCategory:bar. If you put the defaultsort above the categories, the article will be sorted differently in articles needing sources and foo/bar (I think-unless it doesn't matter where the magic word comes on the page, and affects all the categories regardless>).--Rossheth | Talk to me 12:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm not bothered if clean-up categories are sorted by Surname or Firstname.  My view is that it's better to have DEFAULTSORT by the article categories rather than at a distance purely so it can modify internal housekeeping categories.  Bencherlite 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks for the clarification.--Rossheth | Talk to me 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see. I assumed that DEFAULTSORT only affected categories added after (i.e., further down the page) the sort key was set. But since it's a parser function, it makes sense that it would affect the whole page. Thanks for the information.--Rossheth | Talk to me 13:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it wasn't clear (and I've confused myself over this) the fact that PAGENAME is a magic word doesn't matter. It is merely a specific case of the pipe-sorting key (regardless of whether it is a magic word) over-riding the DEFAULTSORT key. Carcharoth 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT}}</nowiki>? 

message: I'm referring to WP:SUBCAT#Secondary categorization rule which says:
When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well.
...which could reversly be expanded into:  "When an article is in a subcategory, it should also be in the parent category."
The definition of "most people" is quite loose.  Take Liverpool:  It is listed in a number of categories including :Category:Liverpool, but it's also listed in it's parent :Category:Cities in England, furthermore :Category:Port cities in the British Isles and it's parent :Category:Port cities in Europe, but also the more lucid categories :Category:Coastal cities and :Category:Towns in Merseyside thrown in the mix.  I'm not saying that this is over-categorization (well, it is, but that's not the point now).  E.g. London does not feature the same (or equivalent) impressive list of categories.  What I'm trying to convey here is that the rule above is practised inconsistently.
If now all articles in :Category:Port cities in the British Isles should also be listed in the parent :Category:Port cities in Europe.  Adding all this information of parent- and sub-category is redundant, error prone and as such can become notorious difficult to maintain over time.
One way to simplify things would be to make this a property of the sub-category and not each individual article.  Would this be a route to go; to enhance wikimedia with the above functionality, or are we "stuck" with the hard labour?  If so, would it be possible to specify the above rule further?
--Frodet 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you turned the sentence around you dropped the part which says "that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it".  This was the point of the duplication.  Categories are for browsing.  Lets say I want to browse through :Category:Bridges in England, as an American, I know very little about the counties of England.  I could probably name very few.  I'd want to browse through all the bridges of England. I'll admit that this is something that bothers me more than many of the people who categorize articles, so duplications like this don't often happen (the bridges are not yet duplicated).  I think it is reasonable to fully populate English bridges, but I wouldn't advocate fully populating any higher bridge levels. If the duplication is seen as a serious problem, then I'd advocate having larger, more broad categories.  Eventually, we will have the ability to create category intersections on the fly, so a bridge could be categorized  as a bridge and by its location separately. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary categorization rule 

message: Ran into an interesting case and decided to check here before I reverted.  This was an article about a person.  She was born in Chicago, and from the article and the research so far, she was not involved in politics in Chicago.  Another editor changed :Category:People from Chicago to :Category:Chicago politicians.  This seems to be completely out of line with what I understand the method for including people in categories.  Should I revert or is my understanding flawed? Vegaswikian 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the editor is planning on creating :Category:Politicians from Chicago to cover everyone who is from Chicago and is a politician.  Seems like over categorization and a trivial intersection. Vegaswikian 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People from 

message: There is a proposal in the works for making all album titles include the artist name in parenthesis following the title, ie. Second Genesis (Wayne Shorter album). This is because there is a problem categorizing artist albums into subgenres with our current categorization and naming schemes at WP:ALBUMS. Take the example of :Category:Hard bop albums. Per the album's project own guideline, actual albums cannot be placed in that category. So adding :Category:Hard bop albums to an album article is not allowed, instead one must create :Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums and then make that new category appear in the :Category:Hard bop albums category. If you are still with me here, I congratulate you. So I have personally tried to do it according to the guidelines, only to find that it requires way too much work and that there is a much simpler solution. If an album title included the artist name in parenthesis like the example I gave in the opening sentence, then editors could just list an album directly into :Category:Hard bop albums without creating a new category for every artist that might have an album that falls into that category. It should be said that often an album that performs hard bop may also have bebop elements, or some other subgenre like free jazz. That means just one artist album may require 3 or even more unique categories just to fall into accordance with WP:ALBUMS guideline. And that is to be done with every musician known to man. It just doesn't make sense. The problem stems from the fact that I can't just place :Category:John Coltrane albums in the :Category:Hard bop albums category, because not every John Coltrane album is hard bop. I realize that the naming proposal is "controversial", but it seems to me that this is our best solution. Otherwise, WP:ALBUMS is satisfied with mediocre coverage of albums, categorizing :Category:John Coltrane albums in :Category:Jazz albums, end of story. But some of those albums REQUIRE a breakdown by subgenre to be both honest and accurate in their coverage. Otherwise we cannot even have subgenres, not because albums don't fall under subgenres- but because current rules governing albums will not permit proper categorization in a logical and straightforward fashion. I can tell you personally that I have tried categorizing albums using the :Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums method, and I can testify that it is a waste of time and time consuming. It has also been called overcategorization by some users. The current scheme makes it possible for albums to only be placed in the most generic of genres, ie. jazz. If one wants to categorize a Frank Sintra album as a swing music album, they have to create :Category:Frank Sinatra swing albums for it to "legally" appear in :Category:Swing albums. Note that albums you see that reside at the swing albums category page that appear there by themselves are incorrect per WP:ALBUMS guidelines. A discussion is underway at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Yet_another_proposal, and the reception has been anything but enthusiastic. I'm not sure those involved with the discussion have taken the time to even deal with subgenres, therefore they cannot understand the scope of this problem. I thought I'd introduce the discussion here also, to get more input on the matter. Thanks. (Mind meal 18:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ALBUMS]] naming scheme enigma 

message: Is it within the guidelines to add a new category for just one or two pages? 135.196.89.101 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. For example WikiProject Albums has consensus that a category should be created even for an artist with one album. But if the category in question is something random not part of a greater scheme, then probably not. –Pomte 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For most categories, probably not, unless you plan on expanding them further. There are exceptions, like the one mentioned by Pomte. I would also add that for categories that are part of the established categorization structure for countries, they'd be acceptable (i.e., a :Category:Foreign relations of Foo even if Foo has few articles to populate that category with). --Hemlock Martinis 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories with a couple of pages? 

message: The template  is included by all of the military aircraft articles.  I dropped one template from this template, but I still think these templates take up too much space at the top of each category page.  Before I changed the template, it was taking up my entire screen.  You had to scroll down to get to the category data. Is this use of the category page acceptable and reasonable or does the template need more changing?  Vegaswikian 23:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And images. Should this stuff really be on cat pages? -Freekee 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is the image, but I believe that everything linked in the template is also in the parent cat.  So I don't see a reason for the info box. Vegaswikian 05:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There might be a case of adding "For aircraft from other nations see: (the parent category)", but it seems fairly obvious how to find all this information for anyone with familiarity with the categorization system. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So we might be able to bar templates due to redundancy. Does anyone have an opinion on whether images should be disallowed, and why? -Freekee 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category page appearance 

message: I think it is a very bad idea to add a template to an article space category, because then the template itself gets listed along with the articles. For example, if you look at :Category:Metabolism (as of this writing), it lists, along with some reasonable articles about metabolic topics, templates such as Template:Alkaloids, Template:Carbohydrates, etc. The reason this is a bad idea IMO is that the category should categorize articles, not internal Wikipedia pages such as templates that will just confuse people (of course, categories specific for templates, such as :Category:Biology_navigational_boxes are not a problem). The current version of this guideline says (at Wikipedia:Categorization#Sorting_with_templates) "This is usually reserved for pages not in the article namespace, such as talk, project, or user pages." I suggest a stronger wording, such as "Template pages should not be listed under article categories". --Itub 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Carcharoth 17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply bad coding in the template. To fix this add  before the category in the template and add  after the category.  You may have to remove the category from other options.  I fixed :Template:Alkaloids if anyone needs a sample on how to fix these.  Vegaswikian 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You meant "includeonly" not "nowiki". And the Alkaloids one was a bad example, as it is not being used on any articles. Carcharoth 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A common cause is somone including the category as an example and forgetting to the the leading ':'  That requires editing the entire page and searching to find.  In the case of multiple included templates you need to search.  I usually edit the page and then go to the bottom and look at all of the included templates.  Yes, I believe this does list all of them.  I think the one you are looking for is  but my quick test change did not appear to work.  Vegaswikian 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick Block has solved the problem.  Full details here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing templates in article space categories 

message: What criteria determines this for US companies by state?  Is it where the headquarters is or where the company is incorporated?  The introductions for most of the categories don't make this clear.  Vegaswikian 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Based" would imply to me where its headquarters is. --Hemlock Martinis 22:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then where do we categorize where a company is incorporated or is that not important? Or do companies that have their headquarters in one state and are incorporated in another get listed in two categories? We can do that by adding a few words to the category introductions.  Vegaswikian 00:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend doing it as people are done, which seems to be by common sense and by the content of the article.  For example, author/cartoonist Alison Bechdel is listed as both a person from Williamsport, PA, where she was born and about which she recently wrote an award-winning book, and as a person from Burlington VT, where she currently lives as has for some years.  If from the article, a company appears to have a major presence in just two states, (say, a beloved Hamburger chain of Texas and Oklahoma), then I would say, mark both the categories.  If the article does not indicate headquarters or main selling area, then I think for now they are just a :Category:Companies of the United States. Scarykitty 17:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies based in 

message: At the pending Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion the argument has been repeatedly voiced that this category should be removed because it is not a defining characteristic for all people who left a religion. While, I agree that this is not a defining characteristic for all or even most people who leave a religion, there are others for whom I strongly believe it is. Examples of the latter are Steven Hassan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Karen Armstrong. Is the fact that it is not a defining characteristic for some or most people a reason to delete the category? Personally, I hold the opinion that it should not be a reason for deletion, because to, use an analogy, the :category:painters shoul not be deleted only because it is not a defining characteristic for Adolf Hitler].
 
On the other hand, I agree with the extra condition for inclusion and I have tried to solve the main stated reason for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion.
But I also believe that this extra condition should be applied consistently e.g. for current religions and ethnicities. See e.g. :Category talk:Jews.
Andries 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only if a defining characteristic or related to their notability 

message: Can someone take a look at ?  This shows up on a bunch of categories and its use means that you have to page down before you can see any entries.  It also does nothing to explain what the category is for.  Should the included templates be removed or should some other action be taken? Are we at the shoot on site level yet?  Vegaswikian 05:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates in aviation 

message: I am curious to see if any editors may realize that categories like :Category:People from New York City or :Category:People from Dallas may need to be broken down in some logical way. This currently is not possible due to the intersection by location guideline, which leaves room for states but not large cities. Please see :Category:People from Cincinnati for examples on an attempt to break down the large category. The subcategories all will deleted eventually due to various nominations. All have not been nominated, but they all will be eventually. Since I founded WikiProject Cincinnati, I wanted to find a way to better organize categories pertaining to the city. I believed that the project would also give more weight to such categorization, but also knew I'd face challenges. If I were a researcher trying to do a book or paper on Cincinnati, such categories would be very useful for me in such a pursuit. For instance, if it was about science I would have :Category:Scientists from Cincinnati. If the I was doing a paper on law in Cincinnati, there would be :category:Jurists from Cincinnati. None of these will exist soon enough, and they will just get merged right back into :category:People from Cincinnati. Does anyone perhaps see such categorization as undercategorization, or am I alone in this sentiment? I'm just curious to know how I go about gaining consensus for a change to that guideline, as I think it works well for smaller cities but not well at all for larger ones. My proposal is that we allow cities with very large categories of people to be broken down by umbrella occupations. Not, ie. "Cincinnati musicians, but "Musicians from Cincinnati". This would allow for categorization of people born in Cincinnati, and those articles where that person has a very strong connection to the city. I ran into no trouble breaking categories pertaining to Cincinnati except those pertaining to persons. (Mind meal 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intersection by location 

message: I was thinking it might be useful if there was a bot (or some other type of program like the ones that make the recent edits and newpages lists) that created a list of all articles that are in a parent category and at least one of its subcategories. Anyone else think this might be useful or want to have a crack at it (or does such a thing already exist)?--Eloil 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to say that something like that exists already, and anyone with permission to use Auto Wiki Browser can do it. The 'list comparer' function allows you to load list of articles in category 1, a list of articles in category 2, and see which are duplicates and which from each list are not.  I used the function a while ago to check whether there were any GAs or FAs tagged with WP:WALES labels that hadn't been included on the project's honours board, and it found a few.  BencherliteTalk 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another bot request 

message: I'm not familiar with bots, but it seems like this would be a good task for one. All of the subcats in :Category:Years in country music are sorted by a lowercase "c". Could someone set up to change them all to an uppercase C? Actually, everything past 1990 is sorted properly (though they use the old style pipes). Thanks -Freekee 03:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone already got to it.  It looks correct to me. --After Midnight 0001 00:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I see now.  I had only looked in Years in country music and had not checked how the articles looked in other cats.  I'll take care of it for you shortly. --After Midnight 0001 03:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  --After Midnight 0001 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot request? 

message: I've been trying to tidy up Category:Discworld by moving various pages from the main category into a set of subcategories. I had just managed to get the main category down to about five pages when all of a sudden, a hundred pages suddenly entered Category:Discworld, even though the are not linked from there on their pages. Well, they are, but only on the main screen. In the edit window they're not. The link just appeared out of nowhere and I can't get rid of it. I can't figure out what I did. Serendipodous 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'problem' appears to be  which is dumping all of these items into the main category.  I fixed the book template so that dropped about 11 entries.  Since there are sub categories, it is in my opinion not good to force things into the parent.  Based on that I may removed that category from the template.  Vegaswikian 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you! I feel very very stupid... Serendipodous 20:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm, help? 

message: I started a new category structure for journals. See :Category:Journals by publisher. Before I go any further, does this look helpful? In some cases the categories duplicate existing lists. In other cases they gather articles not listed anywhere. What should be done small, independent publishers that only have a few journals, or even just one? Carcharoth 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category structure for journals 

message: Have a look at :Category:Trends journals and :Category:Current Opinion journals. Does this look like a good way to combine lists, categories and categorization of redirects in a synergy that allows people to see the existing structure of redirects with disrupting the list and still prompting people to expand the redirects into stubs if appropriate? :Category:Trends journals directly categorizes the redirects, while :Category:Current Opinion journals lists the redirects in the editable part of the category page. Which way do people here think is best? (In both cases, the redirects are still categorized in the "journal by topic" categories, so Trends in Molecular Medicine still appears in :Category:Medical journals, regardless of whether it is listed at :Category:Trends journals, or categorized there). Carcharoth 13:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, :Category:Current Opinion journals is the wrong way to go since the introduction is not the right thing for a category based on many past discussions.  Both of these categories can be speedy deleted as empty based on the lack of content. Vegaswikian 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you expand on that a bit more? Where are the guidelines for what a category introduction should say? Have people in the past tried what I've done there and the discussions said that this is not appropriate? If not, then new discussions are needed. Have a look at :Category:Nature Reviews journals. The only difference between that and :Category:Trends journals and :Category:Current Opinion journals, is that the Nature Review journals have articles. Are we deleting categories now because the articles haven't been written yet? What we have in each case is a list article that might, eventually, produce separate articles for each of the journals. It would seem silly if I had to write stubs for each journal to 'justify' the existence of the category. Let's take another example. While browsing through the journal articles, I came across List of pharmaceutical sciences journals. If I created :Category:Pharmaceutical sciences journals, and put List of pharmaceutical sciences journals in there, would the same argument apply? Does List of pharmaceutical sciences journals have to sit in :Category:Pharmaceutical sciences until enough journal articles have been created to start to fill a category? What is the tipping point, one, two, three articles? Carcharoth 22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synergy between lists and redirects and categories 

message: I kind of want a little more in a few cases.  Let's say for instance that I have a type a LOT of articles on one kind of thing, covering all of these things in the world.  They're categorized by country already, which is clearly most logical, but I have templates that I can use to auto categorize by model, status, and other sorts of things.  The result of one of these queries is large enough (say 30) to be non-trivial, but still large enough that it needs further categorization (just visual NOT another darned category).  Furthermore, the names of the articles frankly aren't very important, and a reader will value the information of "which are in which country" higher than the ability to scan alphabetically (I think you would just search...).
Now, we could sort the items by country name (which is available and trivial to do), but then the reader has no indication that they're sorted in such a manner.  So my question is: is there a way to either contain the sorting index in the articles title shown on the category page, or to display the some index in place of "A", "B", "C"?  Thanks for your help, I really want to find some way to use the categories beyond a deep dark unhelpful maze. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way to change the index in place of alphabetical, or to rename what is used for the listing.  It is possible to create redirects to the articles using alternate names, and then categorize all the redirects.  The redirected titles will appear in the category.  For more see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects.  I'd love to write a more helpful response, but I have a very sketchy idea what you are asking. Could you explain with a concrete example? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking that like :Category:Nuclear power stations with closed reactors really should be organized by country, but it also kind of wouldn't be helpful to break them up into country sub-categories.  Now I'm kind of thinking that a dual-categorization could be appropriate.  So, I'm kind of thinking about making a tree like this:
*Nuclear power plants
**Nuclear power plants by country
***Country x
****items unknown amount
****Country x closed reactors
*****Small list - overlap with below
**Nuclear power plants by type
***stuff
**Nuclear power plants by status
***Nuclear power plants with closed reactors
****items x40 about
****Country x closed reactors (same as above)
***Nuclear power plants with reactors under construction
****items x10 about
***etc.
But... eh... it's cumbersome. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know we can add a sorting string, but... 

message: I don't think that one should make statements such as "Check to see where siblings of the article reside" without first establishing what "siblings" means (if nothing, putting in a link).  Also, the sentence "If there are few if any articles in a category, the article probably belongs in one of the subcategories" doesn't make sense.  Perhaps the author mean "few if any sibling articles"?
"For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or organization members or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate" is even more nonsensical.  My best guess for the meaning is "For example, avoid placing an article in a category (such as profession, organization, or award recipients) unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate."
Seeing as how it's parenthetical anyway, it seems to me that it should either be rewritten or deleted completely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the difficulty is the X or X or X list.  How does "avoid placing an article in a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accuate" sound?  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines cleanup 

message: 526 cycles were found. The list of cycles is presented at the page User:AKA MBG/Cycles. Welcome to resolve it. --AKA MBG 18:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cycles 

message: So far, my understanding of categories at WP has been that if you create one and then add corresponding tags to a bunch of articles, then the titles of those articles will show up as links in the new category. The system searches its index and lists all of the articles that include that one tag. However, wouldn't it be nice if it were possible to create categories that corresponded to multiple tags? I can imagine that the Wikipedia system might have to be modified somewhat to make this possible, but think of the possibilities! If a group of articles were provided with a range of descriptive tags, creating really specific categories would then be a snap. One old problem that would be easy to solve with this would be organisms by geographical location; category tags like "Venomous Snakes of Rwanda" would no longer be necessary, as long as all the relevant articles contained tags like "Venomous", "Snake" and "Rwanda" tags (among others). Wonderful!
On the other hand, this idea suddenly strikes me as really obvious; surely someone has thought of it before! So, I wouldn't be surprised if it's simply not possible. Still, it's worth a try. Any idea? --Jwinius 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the Wikipedia:Category intersection proposal. --Itub 09:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. That page is now over a year old; being a proponent of this solution, I don't know if that's good or bad. --Jwinius 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be broad support for implementing category intersection.  The reason it hasn't happened yet appears to be mostly technical -- it would slow the servers down too much.  However, every now and then there is discussion about possible ways to deal with the speed problem.  I think the technical problems will eventually be solved, but I wouldn't venture to guess when.  Also, take a look at the link intersection proposal. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compound categories? 

message: Under general guidelines, it says “#8  Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.”
I propose re-wording this sentence to something like “Categories that are not self-evident or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article.”
My main concern is the term “uncontroversial” is too vague (defined as “discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views”). Some users are trying to remove categories like :Category:Homophobia and :Category:Censorship from certain articles because they think the categories negatively portrays the article and they cite this guideline as their rationale for removing the categories. 
As a result of this guideline’s wording, these editors seem to believe if there is any controversy, such as controversy amongst Wikipedia editors, then the disputed category should be removed; these users have not proven controversy through any reliable sources. This troubles me because if editors feel they have the right to remove any category because of controversy surrounding Wikipedia editors, then a large array of categories may be removed via users citing this guideline.
Please offer your inputs, comments, or suggestions, on if this sentence should be re-worded. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I'm not sure how this should be reworded. The issue isn't so much about whether the category is good or bad, but how articles are being categorized. Using "Homophobia" as an example, if an article discusses the topic of homophobia it would make sense to put it in a category called homophobia.  If people are labeled as being "homophobic" by their critics, I don't think they should be in the category.  If people are notable because of their views on homophobia, such as; by coining the phrase, advocating its use, or campaigning for it not to be used, that would seem like a reason for putting them in the category.  This is very similar to the discussions about Racism/Racist, Anti-Semitism/Anti-Semite, etc...  The distinction is whether the topic is discussed as opposed to making a value judgment about an individuals beliefs.  If the category is named and defined so that it encourages POV labeling of people it is a bad category. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial categories 

message: I'm having a little back-and-forth about whether a particular Australian category should be a sub-category of the related "Asia" or "Oceania" category. I'd prefer to follow the U.N. standard (Australia as part of Oceania), but if Wikipedia has chosen a different standard, that's fine too. Anybody have a reference at which I can be pointed? Studerby 06:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am not sure we have a standard per se, whenever we have regional organizational designations, Australia has always been listed under Oceania.  Examples include  being part of ,  being a member of , etc. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical sub-categorization standard? 

message: :Category:Creationism is labeled as both :Category:Pseudoscience and :Category:Denialism.  While I can understand that some aspects of the modern creationist movement do play psuedoscientific games, and maybe the fuzzy concept of denialism applies to some of them, but I think it is unfair and derogative to broadly apply such labels to old spiritual traditions, especially when they don't claim to be scientific.  I would appreciate it if someone would reorganize this so that only relavent terms (e.g. Intelligent Design) are placed in such categories rather than painting all of creationism with such views.  75.61.103.123 20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not that they claim to be scientific or not. Its many factors including the explanations that scientists give to say that something is pseudoscientific. Creationism will most likely involve concepts that will help the reader understand the concept of pseudoscience. Also, Wikipedia has a policy that places science highly as an explanining force. So it should probably apply. Realbie 07:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, on the last point, Wikipedia most emphatically does not have a "policy that places science highly". The fundamental Wikipedia policy is neutral point of view, which asserts the exact opposite: that we must neutrally describe all viewpoints. In any case, I tend to agree with 75.61.*.*: it's simply factually incorrect to call Native American creation myths "pseudoscience", for example. Pseudosciences are things like phrenology, and intelligent design is one as well, but many creation stories are simply cultural artifacts, often predating science, not "pseudoscience". --Delirium 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't this belong in the category talk page? Orpheus 04:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat:Creationism 

message: Hello again. I just realized that some editors don't browse via edit history etc and can miss discussion if it is higher in the talkpage. There is an addition to the controversial category section above: . Regards Hal Cross 07:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely users are ignoring your comments; no need to post another section. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Categories 

message: See CfD Sept 30#Category:Jewish football players, where there is proposal which I think has much wider implications. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal parenting on intersection categories 

message: There does not seem to be consistency in river categories and their tributary subcategories about whether articles listed in the tributary subcategories should also be listed in the parent categories.  In some cases parent cats are listed, in others not.
An argument against is overpopulation of the main river categories.  This would seem to support removing articles from parent categories wherever possible.
An argument in favor is that without listing articles in the parent river category, one would not know in which tributary subcategory to locate a river.  How would one know to find stream x in subcategory y?  Listing articles in the parent cat seems to solve this dilemma, making it easier to locate river x in state y.
An example is :Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania.
It would be nice to reach a consensus so that we can move forward and establish consistency, at least in the rivers categories. Gjs238 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization and subcategories as it relates to Rivers Categories 

message: Thanks to all for the discussion above. Carcharoth's suggestion is certainly very helpful, even if it doesn't directly address & resolve the issue of displaying the subcats on the page you're looking at. But why on earth is there no explanation of those clickable [+] symbols on every page that shows subcats??? What a terrible oversight. It's not just "newbies" that aren't aware of this. I'm an experienced editor (and I've worked extensively with categories), and somehow, I didn't have a clue. Moreover, I re-posted the first part of this discussion on two pages at the Village Pump, and nobody there suggested doing that either. Clearly it needs to be spelled out on every single category page. Hey, at least it doesn't require a technical fix! So what's the best way to get that taken care of?
By the way, this whole issue apparently bothers a heck of a lot of people, judging by this response I got at the Village Pump"
:See bugzilla:1211; it's a known problem and has been for a while. When I checked bugzilla a few weeks ago for a Signpost article, I found that this was the most requested bugfix ever, in terms of the number of people who had 'voted' for it on Bugzilla. There is, as explained above, a known workaround, but it's not an ideal situation. (Apparently, it's not trivial to implement in a way that doesn't cause excessive server load.) --ais523 14:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great find. Please document this on as many relevant pages as you can. Carcharoth 12:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displaying all subcats on one page - resumed 

message: Well, what do you know. It turns out there IS a simple way to get all of those subcategories displayed -- any time, any place. All you have to do is add Category:Name of category to any page, and voila! (I came across this at :Category:Psychology, if you want to see what it looks like.) 
Still not a perfect solution, seeing as it duplicates whatever part of the normal subcategory display is shown on the main category page. But it's better than trying to explain how to go up to one of the parent categories in order to use the clickable [+] symbol to expand the subcats. Cgingold 06:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great find. Please document this on as many relevant pages as you can. Carcharoth 12:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: categorytrees

message: Over at WikiProject Musical Theatre, we've been having LENGTHY discussions as to how to handle categorization of articles on musicals.  Mainly, it's how to categorize them by nationality: in some cases, it's obvious that a musical is American (American creators, first major production on Broadway), but in others -- and in a world where creators are increasingly less bound by spatial considerations it's becoming much more frequent -- creators of different nationalities produce a musical, leaving it more difficult to categorize.  If you look at our talk page, you can see the conversations we've had.  If anyone with a little more expertise can help us out, it would be GREATLY appreciated.  —  MusicMaker5376 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help on how to cat articles on musicals 

message: There is an issue illustrated at :Category:People from North Holland.  There are about 260 pages and five subcategories.  But only four of the subcategories are visible when initially loading the page and so it says There are 4 subcategories in this category, which are shown below. More may be shown on subsequent pages.  This is not really satisfactory, so one option is to label all subcategories as "*" as in .  But that is not satisfactory either.  --Rumping 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#categorytrees above. Carcharoth 12:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it seems. Thanks. Indeed, this trick was already described in the project page, but not very obviously --Rumping 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large categories and subcategories 

message: Although Nobel Prize nominations are kept secret for 50 years, I think it would be a useful category. Please let me know your opinion! — Tirkfltalk 08:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have doubts.  First, it would have to be restricted to the official lists and so far there are only two.  Second, it would add categories to those already over categorised (Stalin seems to have been nominated twice for the Peace Prize). Third, it would not particularly aid navigation.--Rumping 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ad 1) The category could be named "Unofficial Nobel Prize nominees". Or there could be a category for the officials and the unofficials. I made a quick search and found 14 persons (unofficials included). If the nominees are made public after 50 years there are already a lot of people, who could be put in this category. ad 2) There are always "over-categorised" people, but the ones I found are definitely not. Finally, I disagree with your 3rd point: everybody can easily find the winners, but if you are searching for the nominees you have to click through several search results.  — Tirkfltalk 14:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Unofficial Nobel Prize nominees is totally vague.  Why not put this in a list where the source for inclusion can be included? Vegaswikian 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Nobel Prize nominees 

message: We have categories for U.S. Congressional Districts, and I'm sure(or at least hope) that there are similar ones for Parlimentary Districts in places like Canada, but where are there categories for State repersentative districts, like for Pennsylvania's 93rd Representative District? ----DanTD 02:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Pennsylvania General Assembly seems to be being used at present. --Rumping 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know. Thanks, Rumping. ----DanTD 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State/Provincial Representative Districts? 

message: I know that we discussed this some where, but I can't find it.  Basically consensus was to keep the introductions short.  I'd like to add something to the Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#What goes on a category page? or in Wikipedia:Categorization that points this out.  Besides some rather longish text entries, I'm seeing navigation templates which in some cases are being included in every child of some parent categories.  But as a general rule, I think navigation templates should not be inclued execept when they specifically provide for navigation within the category structure.  
I'm thinking something in Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#What goes on a category page? like:
Introductions should be short and only navigation templates that facilitate moving between categories or category pages can be included. 
Vegaswikian 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look of a category page 

message: I apologize if this is mentioned somewhere, but I have read this article and done some searches and can't find the answer.  I have the need to not only list the subcategories of a parent category, but also do crawl down to each subcategory and generate a list of all the articles there (assuming no loops).  Is there such a control/program?
:Special:CategoryTree -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 18:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a way to list all the subcategory articles in the parent category? 

message: I got involved trying to moderate the discussion at Talk:American Family Association, but as I am out of town, have limited computer access, and little time, I haven't been able to keep up with it.  There are some sections above that relate to this, and it is pretty obvious reading the talk page what the issues are.  It relates to categorizing the American Family Association article in :Category:Homophobia.  The two sides involved in the debate seem to be talking past each other.  I'm concerned about how this debate relates to the categorization guidelines, and if they need clarification to handle controversies like this one.  We've removed many categories at CFD that categorized people and organizations as being racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc... However the remaining categories dealing with the larger topics have become a defacto way to categorize people by their beliefs.  Personally, I don't think this is a good thing.  Without the efforts of many, this will continue and spread.  So I'd like to get this cleared up before things get worse.  I think people and organizations who are clearly associated with a certain belief could become a perfectly fine annotated and cited list, but should not become a category.  I think this is already the consensus of opinion, but without the efforts of those of us who care about categorization, the consensus may get away from us.  If I'm misreading the situation, please let me know. --☑ SamuelWantman 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more opinions 

message: Hi, I've had an idea to improve category navigation, but I don't have the programming skills to handle it. The idea is to create a search facility to find things by multiple categories. As an example, this could be used to find articles about all 21 year old Argentine football strikers who have Wikipedia articles, by finding the common occupants of ,  and . If this facility already exists please let me know, if it doesn't could some computer genius please design it and let me know. regards, King of the NorthEast 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, category intersections are a long-desired and oft-requested feature of the mediawiki software. --lquilter 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:category intersection and Wikipedia talk:Category intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, such a tool, called CatScan, already exists, as described at m:User:Duesentrieb/CatScan, for two categories.  I suspect it could be modified to be recursive - that is, to do an initial compare of two categories that generates a temporary list, to then be compared to a third category, but you'd have to talk to the author about that. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou all for your advice. catscan is exactly what I was looking for. It would be good if it allowed more parameters, but I mustn't grumble when I've just been shown such a useful tool. Regards King of the NorthEast 17:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Search 

message: Feel free to move this topic if there is a better page for it.
:Category:Businesspeople in real estate and :Category:Real estate and property developers each include the other. This suggests that this hasn't been thought through, but I'm not sure how it should be instead. - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A circularity 

message: Hi, in every year the category for football (soccer) clubs disestablished appears in both the general disestablishment category and the sports clubs disestablishment category (example::Category:Football (soccer) clubs disestablished in 2000). And I believe it's the same on the establishment side of things. Before I start monkeying around, is there a point to this kind of duplication? It would seem to be simpler if the football (soccer) disestablishments were not duplicated in the general 2007 disestablishement cat, but in sports team disestablished only. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 19:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're absolutely right -- it should just be in the Sports disestablishments! That will maximize findability. Let me know if you have issues with this; I'm working on the establishments & disestablishments categories these days. --Lquilter 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's great. I'm guessing (and hoping) there's some automated way to do this, rather than manually changing it for each year? Shawn in Montreal 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Err, I wish I knew!  I keep meaning to check out the various bots because I do a lot of category editing that gets very repetitive and boring. I'll be watching this section eagerly to see if someone walks us hand-in-hand through the best bots for category editing. --Lquilter 22:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football (soccer) disestablishment cat 

message: There are a lot of categories under :Category:Wikipedians by interest which include themselves as subcats, e.g. :Category:Wikipedians interested in photography or :Category:Wikipedian snorkelers!
The problem here is that these categories reference the userboxes associated with them, and these userboxes contain something like:
  Category:Wikipedian snorkelers
So, by referencing their userboxes, these Categories form cycles.  It's kind of a mess, as you'll see if you browse Wikipedians by interest!  What to do??
ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just incidentally, when I made my recursive user box, described here I was worried I'd break something, but seems to only limit the recursion. Pete St.John (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclical userbox categories!! 

message: So let's say you've got a category like compilation album series. And it's got a subcategory, RCA Country Legends which is comprised of all the individual albums in that series. Simple enough. But there's an article called RCA Country Legends. You don't also put that article in the compilation album series, do you? But if you had an article about an album series, and it didn't have individual article that could be categorized, you would put that article in the category. Right? -Freekee (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the "topic article rule": WP:SUBCAT#Topic_article_rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so the answer to both questions is yes, you do put both the article and its subcat in the category (if appropriate). Categorization seems to logical, but I often end up confused. Thanks! -Freekee (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles vs. subcats 

message: Okay, what's going on with these two categories? 
:Category:µ-Ziq albums
:Category:µ-ziq albums
Albums are split between the two cats, but I'm curious about how the categories are displayed on their pages. One of them shows "μ-ziq albums" at the top of the page, and "M-ziq albums" down in the "Pages in" section. Why is that? I want to change the albums so they're all in the same category, but I want them to display correctly. It appears that the only way for it to show the Greek letter is to use a lower case "Z," which appears to be incorrect. And even the lower case "z" shows wrong in some places on the cat page. Any help? -Freekee (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All pages must technically begin with an uppercase letter, which is why capital mu appears. The discrepancy is because one category was using  while the other didn't. What  does is cause the title to appear lowercase. I'm not sure whether this can be fixed with the pages inside the categories. –Pomte 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have referred to this question at the village pump. –Pomte 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for doing that. The answer given (as of now) is to use and   or ​ (zero-width space) at the beginning of the category. What does everyone think about that? It sounds like it has been done before. -Freekee (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Latin characters causing problems? 

message: I added the following clarification to the user namespace section:
*"User categories must facilitate collaboration regardless of any sociality they may facilitate. User categories are defined by users."
Hyacinth (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  If the category should exist, then it should be there.  Adding anything to a red category is something that should be avoided. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Why should we disregard the privileges we normally give editors in regards to their user pages? What is the harm caused by "red categories"? Hyacinth (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User namespace 

message: I see interminable lists of categories under deletion on the grounds that they are narrow and not very useful, largely because they amount to "people who are in category X and are also in category Y". An example might be Mexicans of Cherokee descent, a cross-product of the category citizenship and the category ethnicity. Another might be Islamic nations in the British Commonwealth.
Why not do away with these altogether and provide a facility for people interested in generating such cross-hierarchy lists for whatever use they have mind? Let them choose two or more categories, each from within a single hierarchy, and request a list of all articles in the intersection of those categories? Then create a way for registered users to save cross-category searches like this for reuse. Perhaps, for fun, even create a general page of "Most recent 100 cross-categorizations that Wikipedia users have created."
—Largo Plazo (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing the use of cross-hierarchy categories 

message: *"User categories must facilitate collaboration regardless of any sociality they may facilitate. User categories are defined and populated by users. The possibility of the categories to be used for collaboration will be judged as indicated by the title of the category such that "Category:Tall Wikipedians" would be judged inappropriate while "Category:Wikipedians interested in height" would be acceptable."
Why was the above text removed? Hyacinth (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the naming conventions are listed on a different page, and because there are some "current convention" discussions currently underway, as I believe you know. - jc37 12:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What page are the naming conventions listed on? Hyacinth (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for some Wikipedia-related categories.  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal: User categories 

message: There is a little bit of a dispute about how articles (like Jerusalem, Bill Clinton, etc.) that have categories of the same name (:Category:Jerusalem, :Category:Bill Clinton) are supposed to be treated.  believes that there can only be one category on the aforementioned articles (the categories I mentioned above, the ones which share the article's name; , ). I, however, feel that in light of Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule, that is not the case and topic articles can, and often should, have additional categories. This disagreement led to a lengthy discussion here and later here. Does anyone have any opinions or interpretations that could break this deadlock? -- tariqabjotu 15:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, parent categories of categories are supposed to apply to all articles within that category.  So something like :Category:1946 births does not belong on :Category:Bill Clinton, because it applies only to one article within that category, not all of them.  :Category:1946 births just belongs on the Bill Clinton article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic articles 

message: Are all of them notable? See :Category:Sports venues, and :Category:World Wrestling Entertainment venues for examples. In my view, ones like the WWE probably should go. They tour all over the place. What's the point of listing all venues they took place at, when many were for small shows that didn't have much importance? The logic of "let's jam anything into the category, notable or not" seems poor to me. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on venue categories 

message: Is there a way to perform a search for articles that fall within specified categories? Specifically when I am at a wikiproject page there is usually a table that shows the number of articles that are assessed and their importance. I would like to be able to get a list of articles that are both unassessed and High-importance, as it seems to me that High-importance articles are a priority for assessment. But you can normally only get a list of one or the other, which is like finding a needle in the haystack. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave you tried a google search for both terms in one query? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-referencing 

message: *See User:Hyacinth/User categories (talk) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyacinth (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Wikipedia talk:User categories 

message: Please see Wikipedia:VPP#Some thoughts on categories and User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Over-categorization. More opinions are needed. Carcharoth (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it appears that we have a bot adding top level categories to many articles?  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. I think (ask Betacommand to get a definite answer) that Betacommand uses manual editing and scripts on his own account to do fairly fast editing, but that is not using a bot. If you look back through his recent contribs (as of the time of writing) you will see that he came off a run of adding ref tags and sections, and started populating the Scotland category with Scottish islands (ie. an attempt to fully populate the primary category "Scotland"). A perennial suggestion with regards to categorisation, but not something that has ever really happened (I think the German Wikipedia actually use this system). Betacommand bot did around 50 of these, but then someone ask him to stop and he did. Seems to be being discussed at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind separate all-inclusive categories, but it is rather annoying to have a category about a topic and have 200 minor articles in the top category. Thats usually why some cats like Law say that new articles should be sub-cated. MBisanz talk 05:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyone who knows anything about categories knows this proposal represents a complete overturning of all our existing categorization structure.  Anyone who knows anything about betacommandbot knows that the consequences of him taking an interest in categorization could easily wreak havok. He admits the main reason is to make things easier for bots.  We must act quickly and firmly by establishing a concensus here that this particular initiative by Wikipedia's most controversial editor (,  and the latest etc) is not a good idea.  I would like to go further, and establish a precedent that - say - all bots attempting to do something new with categories, should seek approval, or at least explain their proposed edits, here.  It is altogether typical of Beta that he suggested his proposal in a four-line comment (first link at top) on completely the wrong page, and that he took as a go ahead the absence of comment as frankly negative as I am being (second link). You can't mince your words with this guy or he will claim you are agreeing with him.  Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The reason I haven't come down so hard against Betacommand is that it will help to have some bot operators help out with the sort of thing that Sam is suggesting below. If we can all work together, this might actually get somewhere this time. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I also believe there is a function in AWB that can be used to cross-tab various cats and drill down (recursive) search, although I havent played with it enough to be sure. MBisanz talk 23:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: To be clear, I am NOT proposing that every article that is currently subcategorized under a category be duplicated at the top level.  Most category taxonomies would continue as they are.  What would change would be the "plural categories".  Using the Scotland example, perhaps "Places in Scotland" would be a fully populated category, as would :Category:Scottish people.  The guiding principal of what I'm proposing is that someone who knows little about a topic should be able to find what they are looking for if they only have a vague idea of what it is. For example, perhaps someone hears something about a place in Scotland called "Lock Tess" or something like it, but they don't quite remember what it was and have no idea what a loch is.  By browsing through a category that has every article about a geographical place in Scotland, they should be able to find it. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Populating primary categories 

message: This may have been discussed somewhere before, but after scanning dozens of long pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Novel categorization, Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories, this one here, and all their corresponding talk pages, and now being none the wiser, my rather simple question (not rhetorical) is this:
What is the point of having a :Category:British novels and a :Category:English novels if both are removed from an article on a British / English novel (A Heritage and Its History)?
For my previous confusion on this subject, see this discussion on my talk page and the arguments propounded at this deletion request, both of which I found only partly enlightening.
I have already posted the same question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Novel categorization but so far haven't received an answer. Who can help? Thanks in advance, <KF> 12:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SUBCAT might be worth a read. Especially the Secondary Categorization rule. - X201 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British novel? English novel? Neither? 

message: In this specific case, we are considering making a category for songs that have been featured in the Guitar Hero (series) of video games, but the general arguments would apply to any music video game.  Generally, these games already have lists of songs that are included, so it's not like the information can't be found, but reading through here and Overcategorization, there's nothing that seems to explicitly state this would be a good or a bad category.  Would this be a reasonable category to create and populate? --MASEM 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These categories are a very bad idea and have been deleted in the past. They are somewhat like the "artist by performance" examples of overcategoriztion.  If songs are categorized by the games they appear in, it would also make sense to categorize them by the TV shows, commercials, movies, political campaigns, etc... in which they can be heard.  This is why we have lists (though I suspect that the lists would end up on AFD as well). -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've nominated :Category:Songs used in the Guitar Hero video games for deletion. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've argued the viability of the lists before (since these are "playable" songs, it is more important than just a soundtrack to a game).  However, if the categories have been tried and deleted before, then it makes sense not to try it again.  (And the "Artist by Performance" was the only case that seemed close to what we were looking at.)--MASEM 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Speaking as someone who deletes a lot of trivia from band and album articles, I think this is trivia institutionalized in categories. X song was heard in Y movie is very trivial trivia. I don't let any of that stuff stay unless the song featured had something to do with the plot of said movie or TV show, or was the theme song. I would delete the sentence, "this song was featured in Guitar Hero" in a heartbeat. A category listing is exactly the same thing. Or maybe less worthwhile, since there's no opportunity for commentary. -Freekee (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that there is no need to mention the game in the song articles (that is trivia), but the songs can be listed in the game articles (that is not trivia). No categories needed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of "Songs featured in (music video game) series" 

message: lets do the Category:Index-<TOPIC> and use HIDDENCAT on the index categories. that should make everyone happy :) βcommand 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal 

message: The hatnote currently reads:
:You may be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats, a wikiproject to organize articles related to felidae and all varieties of cats; Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories, a wikiproject to organize categorizing; or Help:Sorting, a page on sortable tables.
First of all, I don't think we should try to wikify it by using , as most hatnotes do, as that gets rid of a fraction of a line space below the note and before the 'Editing guideline' template box, which I think makes the page easier to look at.
But I think we should shorten it to:
:Multiple shortcuts redirect here. For other uses, see: WikiProject Cats, WikiProject Categories or Help:Sortable tables.
This fits in with the examples of hatnotes, which use a similar form - not directly addressing the reader; also I think the explanations we had before are really implied - of course Wikiproject Cats is about cats, and the average reader of this page won't need to be told about that :)
So yeah - that's what I think! Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensible suggestion. Changed. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten hatnote? 

message: Not sure if this is the right place to raise this, but I find it annoying to see "maintenance categories" (if that's what they're called; I mean things like "Articles with unsourced statements from November 2007") mixed in with the more useful categories. Look at the article on Wrocław, for example. 99% of users will have no interest in the maintenance categories, yet their presence makes it more difficult to find the categories which might actually be useful. Would there be any support for a change of policy on this? The maintenance categories seem unnecessary anyway: editors wishing to find a list of all articles with unsourced statements etc. could use What links here from the relevant template(s).--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think these categories are more harmful than helpful, and am wondering if anyone can make a case for keeping them.  I do recall some maintenance categories that were deleted and the argument to delete was the same as put forward by Kotniski, mainly that you can use a template and "What links here".  All the templates and links to the "What links here" listings could be posted in a maintenance project, so it seems that nothing is lost.  -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree and I would sugest to separate meta categories as "Wikipedia cleanup", "All pages needing cleanup" etc. into its own metacategory namespace, for instance called Metacategories and list them separately on article pages. (hdrb)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.240.180.1 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would prefer to keep the maintenance categories; I see them as a tag at the top of articles (I use the classic skin) warning that they need cleanup. They're a bit less in-your-face than the  templates, but still an incentive for me to try and keep the articles I work on tag-free.-gadfium 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates aren't enough of an incentive? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think on article pages the end-user experience ought to take priority over what editors find useful. I'm not sure exactly how your skin looks (I see categories at the bottom of articles, which I assume is the default), but I suspect that if a user saw "Articles with unsourced statements" at the top of an article they might be misled into thinking that the whole article was unreliable (when all it probably means is that someone has queried one sentence somewhere with a  tag). And if these categories are to be retained for the reason you mention, could we not reduce their number to just one or two? At the moment some articles have a whole bunch of maintenance categories (Articles with unsourced statements from month1, month2 etc.) which really overwhelm the other pertinent categories - the ones which the category feature is presumably intended for.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the maintenance categories have reach nuisance level on many pages.  Brainstorming some options.  I think the ideal solution would be that maintenance categories still exist as they are now, but don't appear in the category list on article pages.  I'm not sure this is technically possible, though.  One problem with the "template/what links here" method is that maintenance tags from different months all link to the same template: we'd used the ability to keep track of the older tags, which are very useful to clean-up projects.  I would only support getting rid of the categories if there was some work-around for this problem. --jwandersTalk 08:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there would be no problem if the maintenance categories were hidden on article pages. I don't know if the developers  would be prepared to implement that. A work-around for the months problem would be to have different (sub)templates for each month. For example, we could write  instead of . This would mean populating template space instead of category space - and it's these categories in particular which accumulate in large numbers at the foot of some articles, so it would be particularly beneficial to get rid of them.--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I support removing maintenance categories from the bottom of articles, particularly by way of using HIDDENCAT on the maintenance category pages. However, it would have been nice if someone had notified the individual maintenance projects about this discussion; it took me a few minutes to find it after someone had started placing HIDDENCAT on some – but strangely not all – of the wikification categories. Nevertheless, I wonder if HIDDENCAT can be added to the  template; if it works, it should filter down into all of the monthly maintenance categories. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 11:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell no-one seems to be objecting to maintenance categories' being hidden. There may not yet be such a clear consensus regarding stub categories, or categories like "Spoken articles". I'll leave notes on a few other pages to give others a chance to join the discussion and hopefully reach consensus soon.--Kotniski (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There may have been no objections when Kotniski's comment was written, but there are now at least two: see below at #Update_WP:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance categories 

message: Working with awards and award-winners and CFDs -- and now TFDs! -- all this time it occurred to me that perhaps the best solution is a single compressed template. So, I drafted Template:Awardwinners; other editors' thoughts would be appreciated. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but I thought I'd at least ping some other folks involved in award-winner discussions for their opinions and thoughts. --Lquilter (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  award-winner template 

message: Am i right in thinking that a redirect should not be placed in categories. The article K52EG, about a minor tv station, was deleted at AFD a few months ago, and redirected to its parent broadcaster. Shortly after, the creator(i think) of the article added it to several categories, which i reverted. However, today, they have re-added it to the cats, citing WP:TVS, which says nothing about re-directs. So should it be in the cats? My gut feeling is that it shouldn't, but i thought i'd bring it here to check, is there a specific policy against/for putting redirects into categories. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are guidelines for this.  See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: Whats the deal with adding Wikipedia categories to images that have been deleted and transferred to Commons? Should we be doing that, since it appears to to recreate the image on WP (though whether it actually does or not is unclear to me). Advice would be helpful, thanks. Rockpocket 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think images should be added to any Wikipedia categories except categories that are defined as image categories.  Even in that case, there should be some good reason why the images cannot be on commons.  Otherwise it is a duplicated effort to commons and counterproductive to our use of categories.  The best practice is to create the category in commons and link it to Wikipedia pages and categories, when appropriate, by using a template. I think this has been the customary practice, has been discussed in the past on this page, and if it is not stated clearly in the guidelines we should add it. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. That makes sense. Thanks for the advice. Rockpocket 07:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Image categorisation 

message: What's the current consensus on these?
I'm thinking of examples like Category:Triumphal arches in Romania and Category:Norwegians of Spanish descent.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:OCAT.  If they complete an established hierarchy, or have the possibility of growing into a larger category, the consensus is to keep.  If they show no potential of growth, and are not needed to complete a hierarchy the consensus is to upmerge. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories with only one entry 

message: Not sure if I should ask here, but isnt it possible to see
articles in multiple categories (or intersecting categories) ??
Just an example: - Suppose I am looking for real-time strategy games.
But it's not any strategy game. It's for a platform. For example ps2.
Also I lets say I was looking for the ones released in 2006.
Is it possible to look at multiple categories to help searching, insted of looking up
multiple lists (for example ps2 games of 2006 and real-time strategy games)??
Maybe there could be some tool that find articles that coexist in the given categories?
Thanks alot --Foundatorx189.33.159.46 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an existing feature of the software, see Wikipedia:Category intersection and the associated talk page.  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is a tool - see m:User:Duesentrieb/CatScan. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 13:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category intersection 

message: :Category:Non-free Logos currently contains 58,738 images, is it worth marking this with  or not? This is the category that  places images into unless someone specifies a particular subcat in the template variable, e.g. {{|Non-free logo|sports logos}}, and is currently horrendous to try and navigate through to find a particular image. Nanonic (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are subcategories really needed? Would an editor really need to look through images that are sports logos, for example? Perhaps a note at Wikipedia talk:Logos could start a discussion as to whether there is significant value in have subcategories for logos. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another image cat question 

message: I would like to create a subcategory for this category called "Fictional martial arts masters." I'm sure there are plenty of articles that could go into this category. I followed the instructions and tried to create this subcat, but its not working. Please help. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction. I want "Fictional elderly martial arts master". I created :Category:Fictional martial arts masters, but it needs to be deleted. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already taken care of. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Stock characters by characteristics 

message: I'm trying to create a template here to help with categories at the wiki where I edit. I'm having a problem trying to figure out how to make the "categorize as" bit optional - i.e., I have an article named "Quicksilver Style", but want it to show up in the boss category as "Geryon".
When I tried last to implement this function, it made the "categorize as" bit mandatory, and all articles using the template had screwy code show up unless I added the piped title.
Ideally, I would like the template to work so that

would show the "Bosses", "Devil May Cry 3 Bosses", "Characters", and "Devils" categories, and file them under the article's name, while

Would show the same categories, but in those categories file it under "Geryon the Timesteed".
If this question is innapropriate for the help desk, could you direct me to the correct place to ask it? Thanks.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Template creation 

message: In light of the above discussion, should the work I have been doing depopulating :Category:Education and :Category:Schools be put on hold? Dbiel (Talk) 04:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal would not probably not affect :Category:Education as that is a topic category (without an "s" at the end).  Eventually, :Category:Schools could possibly become a fully populated index category.  There would need to be discussion about where to place the top level index category.  For each topic there is probably an optimum level for an index.  The criteria is that it should be obvious to someone browsing through a higher level where to look.  For that reason, I would not advocate populating "Entertainers", but I might want to fully populate "actors".  I can see populating all people categories up to the level of their occupation.  If a category can fully described by intersecting two other parent categories, I would hope that in most cases the parents would be repopulated, and the intersection would be hidden.  It was fine when we had just an occupation and nationality to combine the two, but if there are categories for many other attributes they cannot all get intersected and remain visible. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Depopulate Parent Categories

message: The location of the magic word __HIDDENCAT__ on most category pages should not make much of a difference, but when you get to a page like :Category:Category needed it does become a issue/question. So what is the recommended possition/location of the magic word? top of page, bottom of page, somewhere else? Dbiel (Talk) 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of magic word

message: The magic word has been added to :Category:Uncategorized from February 2008 but all articles in that category continue to include the maintenance category in the list of categories, which of course would generally be empty. Or is this a case where the maintenance category should not be hidden? Dbiel (Talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it does work, it just needed to be added to the correct category :Category:Uncategorized pages Dbiel (Talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the magic word work?

message: for relevant categories, have both "Topic (by subtopic)" and "Topic (alphabetical)," and if appropriate "Topic (by Geographical area)" & "Topic (by Period)"   and call them just that, which everyone will understand. The choice of which categories to handle that way would need discussion individually or in relevant groups. Presumably it would apply only to the vary large categoriesDGG (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: simplified proposal

message: FWIW,  is currently at TFD: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 28#Template:Hiddencat. szyslak 02:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was kept as a speedy close. --☑ SamuelWantman 20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TFD

message: I'm arbitrarily creating a subheader to discuss the issue of hidden categories and CfD. Obviously, we first have to agree on what we should use hidden categories for, but eventually, we should decide whether we want "Hide" or "Unhide" decisions to be made through CfD. One of the dangers of that is to see 90% of the debates for deletion closed as "hide". It's a convenient compromise: supporters find it better than deletion, deletion supporters think "at least I won't see the damn cat". But then we are simply washing our hands of the editorial tough choices. For instance, I recently nominated the subcategories of :Category:Fictional characters by religion, in large part because the contents are meaningless. :Category:Fictional Christians, for instance, is almost entirely composed of fictional Italian-American mobsters and characters whose religion is completely tangential to the storyline. I suggested that a new cat be created for :Category:Portrayals of Christians in fiction which would make it clear that only those portrayals which are meaningful as far as representation of Christianity in fiction. However, if you look at the debate here you can see that "Hide" would likely end up as a compromise solution, but in the end, we're still stuck with the same meaningless category which happens to be hidden. If we're not careful, hiding might end up hurting proper, meaningful categorization. Pichpich (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anyone advocating meaningless categorization.  Since HIDDENCAT is an option, we need to assume that there will be many users who show all the hidden categories.  In essence the new feature is the choice to show a small or large group of categories.  Along these lines, the developers talked about the possibility of having two different magic words.  There could be MAINTCAT as well as HIDDENCAT.  They could both function the same way, but would have separate option checkboxes on the preference page.  At some point there could be a button added to the category display to show either group of hidden categories.  I think we should keep this in mind when discussing any redesign of categorization. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I did not make that clear, let me say that I don't believe anyone here is advocating meaningless categorization. I'm just pointing out that if we don't craft careful guidelines on how and when to use this feature, there's a distinct possibility that we'll get a whole bunch of mediocre categories surviving as hidden mediocre categories. Pichpich (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First HIDDENCAT, then MAINTCAT ... this is starting to show real possibilities. May I put in a bid for CREATORCAT, an admin-added tag which can be attached to a category so that it shows up only fort the category creator? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden categories and CfD

message: There has been talk that the hiding of categories would cause problems for newbie readers. The simple answer to that is to change the default setting in user profiles to show hidden categories.  Readers who understand how Wikipedia works would continue to have the simple choice of changing the setting to hide the hidden categories. One real question that should be addressed, and it needs to be addressed from the point of view of the reader new to Wikipedia, is how should the default setting for "Show hidden categories" be set? The current default is not checked meaning that hidden categories will be hidden. This should not be an issue for experienced users (readers or editors) they can simply change the setting to what ever they desire. Dbiel (Talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Solution 

message: Category:Zoologists with author abbreviations is strange and incorporates Einstein and some others with have no such cat given--Stone (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is broken 

message: Could someone adept with technicalese please update  and :Category:Hidden categories with the recommended usage, with examples. Thanks :) 
(I was trying to determine whether :Category:Aircraft without specifications was meant to be hidden, or if there's some cascading thing going on that needs to be applied, or even a suggestion on how to help out, but couldn't find a good synopsis quickly..) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiddencat Usage Instructions 

message: Wondering if anyone wants to hash out a naming convention regarding city categories.  So far we have some as "foo of city", some of "foo of city, state", and everytime one comes up for renaming at CFD it seems to have a different outcome.  Some consistency would be nice.  --Kbdank71 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we be following the main article in essentially all such cases?  I'm not saying these are necessarily infallible guides (many of the US cities seem to me to be oddly "over-disambiguated"), but certainly I can't think of a reason for the categories to differ from them.  Alai (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the category contents are for the city, then yes, we should follow the article name.  However jumping to the conclusion that it only contains articles about the city will quite often be an error. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question posed was about "city categories".  Alai (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Right, I've seen that argument.  Do not rename :Category:Widget factories of Albuquerque to :Category:Widget factories of Albuquerque, New Mexico because of the factories that are in the "Greater Albuquerque area".  My question is this:  So what?  :Category:Widget factories of Albuquerque, New Mexico doesn't assume that it doesn't include the "Greater Albuquerque area" any more than :Category:Widget factories of Albuquerque does.  In fact, assuming that :Category:Widget factories of Albuquerque includes the "Greater Albuquerque area" is probably the error.  The rename is not saying "We're now just accepting widget factories in the prescribed city limits of Albuquerque, all other articles must vacate", but rather "This category is specifically for the Albuquerque in New Mexico, not any other Albuquerque in any other location, no matter how great or small (and if it wants to continue to encompass the greater area, so be it)".  --Kbdank71 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the consensus.  However in several of the last renames, several editors clearly stated that after a rename, everything not in the city needs to be removed since that is not the correct category.  So consensus has changed.  This issue needs to be cleared up.  Either the city categories cover the surrounding areas or not.  Right now there does not appear to be any consensus that they do.  Hence the problem.  If you think there is consensus for this, then let's update the guideline to make this clear so that we can stop waisting time.  If the consensus does not exist, then we need to use area and city categories.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the purpose of the category is to correspond to some different area, then we should follow the name of the article corresponding to that scope.  If there's no such article, I'd be strongly inclined to presume that it's not, in fact, a very good scope.  Whether the scope of a "city" category is as precise as the city limits may often be questionable, but if it's going to be markedly and confusingly different, such as a well-recognised "Greater <city>" area, or a USCB-defined MSA, etc, there generally ought to be a distinct article, and a distinct name for the category to follow.  I see no bearing that the (over-)disambiguating by state would or could have on this.  Alai (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  City vs City, State 

message: I would like to propose a category listing all bands who permit their recordings to be placed on the Live Music Archive. Here is a list. What can we call this? Does anyone agree? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live Music Archive category 

message: Hi. I've created a new category - Category:Satellite operators. The rationale for why I thought it was necessary is on the categories' talk page. Before I spend too much time on adding articles to the category etc., can I have some feedback on whether the consensus is that the category is suitable, in need or redefinition, or just plain not needed :-) Cheers. CultureDrone (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To link to a category, use the following mark-up: :Category:Satellite operators, which produces: :Category:Satellite operators. The category looks fine to me. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category added - opinions please 

message: I don't know what to categorize List of Elena Paparizou awards as. Grk1011 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which cat? 

message: I'd like to see the above turned into a Wiki category. Every known text or study considered to be such should be classified as such on Wikipedia. Thanks for any help. By the way, the above is currently under consideration for deletion as a mere definition. I happen to oppose. Any views on the matter, for or against, will be more than welcome - by me at least. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem with the article, Standard work is that of original research It needs to have some references. As such it really is not possible to create a category for it. Dbiel (Talk) 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Standard work]] 

message: Am I right in saying, that in articles at the bottom, categories should be listed as 0 to 9; then going from A to Z? I am pretty sure this has been mentioned somewhere before, but I just wanted clarification. So just as an example, instead of it being:
Category:Japan Category:1989 Cateogry:Animals Category:Water
in an edit box, it should instead look like:
Category:1989 Cateogry:Animals Category:Japan Category:Water
Am I right, or am I talking dribble? :)) D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's generally agreed that catetgories should be ordered by importance and logic rather than alphabetically.--Kotniski (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a discussion about this higher on the page. --☑ SamuelWantman 19:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. There needs to be a proper consensus on this though, so people are not left confused. D.M.N. (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The current guideline on whether to include subcategories on articles is majorly at odds with the whole concept of depopulating large parent cats.  For example, there will be many geographical features that go beyond one subdivision of a country, say, where each subdivision has a "Geography of Foo" category, so there will be many items at the national level leading one to follow the rote if, then instructions to put subdivision specific articles at the national level and at the subdivision level.  This is what is done in the Italian WP for Italian comuni (municipalities) - they appear in the provincial, regional and national categories. Does that make them easier to navigate? Not sure, but if we did likewise in the US, every town would be in its county, state, and along with a few hundred thousand others at the US level.  If we believe that specific and narrow categories aid navigation and ponderously large categories hinder it, we should make the default: don't duplicate.  I can see the argument made at the subcat page, that a casual reader would not know to look under a subcategory, because he or she didn't know whether so-and-so-actor won an Oscar or not.  Most readers access categories first through articles, so if so-and-so-actor were in the Oscar subcat and someone wanted to find non-winners, accessing the Oscar winners cat will show the obvious parent sticking out for the user to find the rest of non-winning actors so duplication saves one click and really doesn't aid navigation.  Same for most of the other categories: articles should be put in the narrowest category that applies because navigation in categories with thousands of entries is basically not possible. I think the page ought to be updated to reflect this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this already covered in WP:SUBCAT? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: This is coverd by WP:SUBCAT.  I don't know about other people, but I use categories to search for things that I have forgotten the name of.  So small categories can make this task much more difficult.  If for example, I don't know the nationality of an actor I am looking for, I won't be able to find him unless I look through dozens of subcategories.  What I fail to understand about the objections to large categories is why they bother people if you also have the option to select a smaller subcategory for browsing?  Also, see the next section for another reason why we need larger categories... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: Confounding Wikipedia:Categorization_and_subcategories#Secondary_categorization_rule reads:
:When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well.
:This includes articles placed in ethnic subcategories within national menus, for example articles in :Category:African American baseball players should also be left in :Category:American baseball players.
How am I supposed to know if an attribute is "not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it?" Why would it be likely that someone would think of Hank Aaron as an American baseball player, but not as likely that someone would think of him as an African American baseball player? Isn't it more likely that he is thought of as a baseball player in general than any national or ethnic subcategory? Is someone from Los Angeles more likely to be though of as someone from Los Angeles, someone from California, or someone from the United States? Or just someone? This is an impossible and counter-intuitive rule as it asks us to 1.) deliberately create redundant categories, 2.) based on something that seems virtually impossible to know in almost all cases. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit the nail on the head without realising it. The secondary sub-cat rule works in the way that you explained it, but as a way of helping people find things in a category that they would expect not ordering people where to file stuff. Most people would think of him as a baseball player first and then a African-American Baseball player second. The Secondary sub-cat rule is there to address editors who feel the need to categorise things down to the Nth degree. If another editor has filed him away in the black baseball players category but he isn't in the baseball players you can invoke the secondary categorization rule and place him in the baseball category as well. Think of it as a rule that solves disputes and lets both points of view win. Hope that makes sense. - X201 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No That does not solve it: how do you know that he is thought of as a baseball player first and an African American baseball player second? Where is an American baseball player? Where is American? What about the teams for which he played? Is he "more likely" to be thought of as a Brave or an African American baseball player (both of which are subcategories of American baseball players; itself a subcategory of baseball players)? This is impossible to know and defeats the purpose of a subcategory, since by definition all members of a subcategory are members of the parent category as well. This doesn't solve the problem, it elucidates it. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been a problem since the time categories were first implemented.  The discussion above, about repopulating large categories is directly related to this issue.  The current categorization cannot handle this situation well.  On the one hand articles could get put only at the very bottom of the hierarchy.  This is problematic because people may be just as likely or even more likely to want to browse through a complete list at a higher level.  If all the higher levels get populated, then articles fill up with multiple categories from the same hierarchy.  The current compromise was worked out to try and deal with the inadequacies of this system.  I think of the current compromise as an "all or nothing" decision.  If some baseball players can be found in :Category:American baseball players, than all American baseball players should be similarly categorized.  If there are subcategories for every ethnicity of ballplayer, and consensus is to remove articles from the parent category and only populate the ethnicities, then there would not be a duplication.  The situation we don't want is to create subcategories where only some people are removed from the parent categories.  I really hope we can eventually move towards a more sane system that fully populates these larger categories, and uses category intersection to find the smaller ones.  This is in the works.  See the sections above for more details... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategorization and the "secondary categorization rule" 

message: Hello, I need help removing a hidden category.  A while ago, someone placed Talk:Crush 40 into :Category:All articles that may contain original research, which is a hidden category.  I have a feeling it was a couple of months ago, when the article did have this problem.  Since then, the article was cleaned up and even passed a GA nomination, which states that articles cannot have original research to pass.  When I found the category this morning, I couldn't figure out how to remove it.  I'd like some help with this, because it really does not belong in that category anymore. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done It came from  in a comment. Ugh. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a hidden category from an article or talk page. 

message: I would like to seek some guidance as to the criteria by which the main article of any given category should have a relationship to the subcategories the head category covers. I.e. if the Main category A consists of sub-categories B, C, D and E, then the Main article for the category A needs to cover in some substance the sub-categories B, C, D and E at least as sub-sections. Is this assumption correct? (posting in two places as was unsure where this is best posted)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting question.  I'd be interested is hearing of examples where this is the case, and examples where it isn't.  I suspect that the distinctions that help organize articles into a good categories are not always the same distinctions that help organize information into a good article.  Often the subcategories are individual instances of the topic, for example, films organized by year, by genre, etc...  This makes sense for organizing thousands of articles about films.  It may translate into into sections about film genre and film history in the film article, but it may not. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article to category relationship guidelines 

message: I'd like to request discussion about whether and/or when images should be categorised by user (see :Category:User-created images).
I can think of two types of relationships that could be categorised by an "images by user" category:
#Images created by a particular user (for example, photographs taken or diagrams developed by the user).
#Images uploaded by a particular user, irrespective of whether they created the image (for example, logos uploaded by the user but belonging to someone else).
The latter relationship does not seem to me to be worthy of categorisation; editors who simply wish to keep track of their uploads can maintain a list on a user page or subpage. (The upload log provides a similar functionality.) The former relationship may be a more useful basis for categorisation, but images created by Wikipedia users should generally be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (assuming they are released under a free license, which most are), and there seems little reason to keep and categorise them on Wikipedia.
Some relevant CFD discussions:
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 17#Category:Files by User:Pvasiliadis from el.wikipedia
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 11#Category:Maps by User:Briangotts, Category:Fictional maps by User:Briangotts and Category:Historical maps by User:Briangotts
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G.
Any thoughts? –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The long standing consensus has been that categories are an encyclopedic resource created and shared by all users for the benefit of all users.  Self-referential categories have existed for maintenance purposes, and were recently made hidden.  The categories you describe have never survived CFD as far as I know, nor should they in my opinion.  They do not fit the stated purposes of categories, which is to help general readers browse through pages based on subject matter.  Many users create lists of the images they upload in their own user-space, and there have been tools that create lists of these images (I'm not sure which tools are currently working).  Another big problem with these categories is that once an image is created, anyone can modify it.  I often edit images that I find.  Wikis are a collaborative effort.  I could only imagine the first case surviving CFD if the user were to become a notable photographer, in which case it wouldn't be images created by a particular user, but images created by a notable photographer. I'm rather surprised that some of these categories have existed for as long as they have. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation of images by user 

message: While some would like to see these categories banned, I would like to see them used accurately, and I'm wondering if people here have any thoughts on the matter. I feel that if an album is produced (or co-produced) by a person, we can put that album in the category. But if that album has only one song that was produced by that person, it doesn't belong in the albums produced by category. Am I right? Wrong? Doesn't much matter? If the practice is a bad one, how do we enforce it? Also see Category talk:Albums by producer if you're interested in the subject. -Freekee (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories for albums by producers 

message: There seems to be a confusion about the purpose for existing of the article titles and categories. 
*Article titles and categories are not the same
The article title informs the reader about the subject of the article
The category serves to combine many articles on a similar class, attribute, relationship, function, event or other commonality between the articles it contains.
The article title follows naming conventions that deal only with its relationship to the article content expressed in standard English use of nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc.
:E.g. Article Little red riding hood
The category name reflects the hierarchy of its position within the categorisation scheme 
:Category:Female child characters in print fiction
::Category:Female characters in print fiction 
:::Category:Characters in print fiction
::::Category:Printed fiction
:::::Category:Fiction
In effect the job of categorisation entails structuring the category names to reflect their hierarchical position by ideally using a single word to reflect class, attribute, relationship, function, event or other commonality contraction or expansion.
Besides that the categoriser needs to consider the fact that the English language is read left to right. This means the reader has an instinctive ability to disambiguate categories left to right from a specific term (what is being sought) to the general umbrella term (where it is found).
:So, replace this
Categories follow the same general naming conventions as articles; for example, common nouns are not capitalized. For specific conventions related to categories, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (e.g., if an event is considered a war crime), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed. Most naming, however, is straightforward.
:with this
Category naming does not follow general naming conventions of articles, but its own convention that needs to reflect the hierarchical or network structure into which a category is being created. Ideally, the category name should have as many words (except the, of, in, etc.) as there are levels of parent categories between it, and a Project root category which usually has one word. The category name should contain the most specific term referring to the subjects of the articles on the left (first position), and the most general root category word on the right (last position). Intermediary words are derived from higher order categories, arranged to suit the English reading in the best way possible to reflect category stratification rather then strict application of grammar. Do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute, avoid using it, or mark the category as disputed.
Comments?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category naming 

message: Can anyone give me a hand in creating the categorisation equivalent of this template ?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's this for? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template request 

message: This has been overhauled with the help of Brion Vibber. Check it out. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special:Categories]] improved 

message: I think that categorization an article in too many catgories, like over 20-25, makes damage more then good, so we should act against it, see Special:MostCategories. That brings up the question about the categories "Fauna of a country", are they useful? see for example this. Kind regards, Tigermighty (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just nominated all of them for deletion. --Conti|✉ 23:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, have a look at Conventions sur la faune et la flore. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a summary of the page in English? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with too many categories 

message: *Template:User Catbox
I've found this rather useful. Enjoy : ) - jc37 21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userpage navbox 

message: After looking around, I now think my expressed view (about social fixes above) is a bit pointless.
There are higher level problems, a big one is that editors (myself included) easily forget that most readers want and can manage simple, intuitive mechanisms.
Back to categorisation, yes there is probably too much pointless diffusion occuring. But indexing all Men (Man), or all Women (Woman) seems best done by an automated mechanism with access to a database. It seems the German wiki makes more use of Wikipedia:Persondata than the English.
In conclusion here are some main categories found in biographical articles (unusual in bold and note the interwiki links are not logical).
Category       	English       	German       	Suggestion for en:
Man            	empty         	FULL INDEX   	automation
Woman          	none          	FULL INDEX   	automation
Intersexueller 	none          	FULL INDEX   	case by case?
Men            	diffused      	no cat       	leave for concept
Women          	no definition?	no cat       	leave for concept
Person         	diffused      	diffused     	-
American people	diffused      	FULL INDEX   	automation?
Polish         	diffused      	FULL INDEX   	automation?
1949 births    	INDEX         	INDEX        	Ok as it is?
Photographer   	diffused      	INDEX        	?
Living people  	WIDE INDEX    	no equivalent	use CatLargeTOC
"INDEX" means category has an A-Z index without the full 2-D index, WIDE INDEX means a scrolling index, "FULL INDEX" means the German-style showable/hideable two dimensional index. In FULL INDEX click 'ausklappen to see the full index.
"automation" means I think automation will one day place articles in either a fully-indexed category or in some other kind of indexable mechanism, maybe using Persondata?
"use CatLargeTOC" means from :w:en:Template:LargeCategoryTOC create :w:en:Template:LargeCategoryTOC2D to behave like :w:de:Vorlage:TOC Große Kategorie - this should not need any social persuasion (change ausklappen to "show", of course)
"leave for concept" means leave the category for its currently defined concept
-84user (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a feature request that has not been implemented to date, and might never be — it's been around for years with no progress on it whatsoever. It can't be applied as if it were already in place. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it CAN be applied as if it were already in place, because there is already the ability to do category intersection using search.  If we reorganized our categories this way, it would be possible to use the search abilities to much greater advantage, and we could create a special page to make it easier for people to search multiple categories.  On top of this, it would make the categorization system much simpler to apply and maintain.  Many contentious categorization discussions would become moot -- they often deal with the removal of intersections.  As a compromise, or interim step, we could be adding fully populated topic categories in addition to our current system, which would help facilitate the use of search to find category intersections. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category diffusion overview 

message: * Wikipedia:Category intersection (talk page) proposes a technical solution that requires a similar policy change to this one (or "enlightening of editors" ;-)
-84user (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a feature request that has not been implemented to date, and might never be — it's been around for years with no progress on it whatsoever. It can't be applied as if it were already in place. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it CAN be applied as if it were already in place, because there is already the ability to do category intersection using search.  If we reorganized our categories this way, it would be possible to use the search abilities to much greater advantage, and we could create a special page to make it easier for people to search multiple categories.  On top of this, it would make the categorization system much simpler to apply and maintain.  Many contentious categorization discussions would become moot -- they often deal with the removal of intersections.  As a compromise, or interim step, we could be adding fully populated topic categories in addition to our current system, which would help facilitate the use of search to find category intersections. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related proposals 

message: I have made a proposal to change the software so that all subcats are placed at the beginning of the parent category, before any articles. So basically, subcategories will have their own alphabet that comes before the article alphabet (if that makes sense), so you won't have to click through each (next 200) to find all the subcategories. Please comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Sorting of subcategories. Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 05:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting of subcategories 

message: I had recently created a sub-category :Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars in :Category:Types of military forces. Another editor objected on the grounds that if this trend is replicated, some articles will acquire too many categories. He then requested sub-category deletion , so I am wondering what it is that I do not understand about this argument. Essentially he fears that others may in future create "dozens of categories for every imaginable war". This largely stems from impact on articles such as Infantry and Cavalry, and to some extent Artillery because these apply to lots of World conflicts through the ages. I had a look at other widely applicable articles like vehicle and architecture and the last solved the issue by presenting a sectional list of the different types of architecture. However, :Category:Buildings and structures by type is highly sub-categorised. Just wonder if people can offer suggestions either here, or at the category deletion proposal--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-category over-replication 

message: What belongs in a category?  Should images go in the same category as articles?  Should templates?  The question has been asked, and I can't find any good guidelines governing this.
Personally, I believe that templates should not go in categories that serve as encyclopedia content repositories.  Templates are a meta-construct, to aid in building content pages.  They should not be viewed as content themselves.  A bare template is not intended as a destination, even though it may serve as a nice index of related articles.  We have overview/list/portal pages for that sort of use. Those pages may not do much more than just including the template, but oh well.
OTOH, images do serve as content (visual rather than textual), and I have no problem seeing a gallery of, say, US presidents (in :Category:Presidents of the United States) along with the list of links. Putting these in a sub- or separate category just creates another (pointless) layer to drill through. 
If this has all been discussed and decided elsewhere already, just point me there. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories and namespaces 

message: I'm looking for anyone interested in helping review and possibly revamp the LGBT people and culture categories.  See that talk page if you're interested. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT categories 

message: A user just created :Category:English-language albums, which currently has a little over 200 articles.  Personally, I don't think a category like that is necessary, because if a foreign language is not listed, then it is implied to be English since its the English Wikipedia.  It's the same reason that the "language" parameter in infoboxes should be left empty unless it is something other than English.  Before this category gets too big, I think we should discuss whether it is necessary or not to begin with. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds unnecessary to me.--Kotniski (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  English-language albums 

message: I've been thinking about adding descriptive boxes at the top of category pages, saying what the category contains, what the parent categories are, what the relation with those parents is, what some related categories are, etc. This could be done using templates with parameters. It might be useful for both editors and readers when viewing the categories. I've created a kind of prototype at :Category:Villages in Mogilno County. I know it doesn't look great as it stands - a lot more work would be needed to bring something like this into general use - but any comments on the general principle?--Kotniski (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice initiative. Needs to be elaborated and discussed before I can give a position though. __meco (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Not sure how I feel about this.  I would oppose including the parent categories in the box since they are listed on the bottom of the page.  Also pink is not a good choice since it is close to red and that's a warning color.  Collapsed as the default is good. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds similar to Wikipedia:Classification. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but still Classification seems not to be universally used, and what I envisage is more wordy information to make things clearer to both readers and editors. Of course the color can be easily changed - maybe we could have different colors for different types of category, but that's a detail. About including the parent categories - I would definitely mention them, even though they do already appear at the bottom of the page, because a) they aren't very visible at the bottom of the page (though in an initially hidden box I guess they aren't very visible there either); b) my main reason for mentioning them is to document the relationship between the current category and each parent category - whether pages in the category are supposed to appear in the parent category as well (usually they aren't, but in some cases - like Oscar-winning actors - they are - the difference can be specified using different template parameters). I'm going to change the templates in fact to use a single template for the whole thing, and add some functionality to demonstrate other possibilities. I'll keep you posted. --Kotniski (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: One benefit I hope to achieve from this (though it could be done independently in fact) is to eliminate certain inappropriate subcategory relationships where category A is defined as a subcategory of B even though logically it isn't a subcategory, only a somehow related category. By putting the related category in the description, you get it linked from category B's page without having to make it a subcategory.--Kotniski (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding standard description on category pages 

message: I would like to create two new categories: :Category:Albums not categorized by artist and :Category:Songs not categorized by artist. However, I want these to be hidden categories, and I want them to automatically place on articles that meet the criteria (like :Category:Single articles with infobox field chart position). How would I do this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To make them hidden categories, just add  to the category page. I can't think of any way of creating them automatically, though, except by using a bot.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of a new category 

message: Some time ago on this page I remember discussing "Sam's proposal" to rationalize the way catgories are used. Discussion went off down various avenues and the proposal no doubt went the way of all good ideas; but since nothing has been done in the meantime, allow me to present a "new" proposal which is quite similar in concept to Sam's as I remember it, but may this time actually result in something being done. So here goes.
===Proposed categorization rules=== 
(NOTE: These rules are to be interpreted as ideals to be aspired to, not as something which has to be implemented across the board right away.)
# Each category to be designated either a "topic category", containing articles related to a specific topic, or an "index category", containing articles on subjects of a particular class.
# No topic category to be a subcategory of an index category (that would usually be illogical). In particular, don't make category A a subcategory of category B just because category A is named after something (A) which belongs as a member of category B.  
# No page to be placed directly in a category if it is also (directly or indirectly) in one of its subcategories, unless that subcategory is designated as a "distinguished subcategory" (better name required; I mean things like Oscar-winners among actors).
# Information about the intended content of categories and the above-mentioned "designations" to be placed on the category page itself, along with links to any connected pages and categories that don't logically belong as subcategories or parent caetgories (see my template suggestions a few threads up).
I could go into more detail but I'll pause to await reaction. My overall desire is to make the category system reasonably uniform across WP (which it is not now, particularly with regard to point 2.) and semantically meaningful (which again it isn't everywhere). I know some people consider this impossible, but we can still move in the right direction, even if we remain a long way from perfection.--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another proposal to tidy up categories 

message: (NOTE: These rules are to be interpreted as ideals to be aspired to, not as something which has to be implemented across the board right away.)
# Each category to be designated either a "topic category", containing articles related to a specific topic, or an "index category", containing articles on subjects of a particular class.
# No topic category to be a subcategory of an index category (that would usually be illogical). In particular, don't make category A a subcategory of category B just because category A is named after something (A) which belongs as a member of category B.  
# No page to be placed directly in a category if it is also (directly or indirectly) in one of its subcategories, unless that subcategory is designated as a "distinguished subcategory" (better name required; I mean things like Oscar-winners among actors).
# Information about the intended content of categories and the above-mentioned "designations" to be placed on the category page itself, along with links to any connected pages and categories that don't logically belong as subcategories or parent caetgories (see my template suggestions a few threads up).
I could go into more detail but I'll pause to await reaction. My overall desire is to make the category system reasonably uniform across WP (which it is not now, particularly with regard to point 2.) and semantically meaningful (which again it isn't everywhere). I know some people consider this impossible, but we can still move in the right direction, even if we remain a long way from perfection.--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed categorization rules

message: :Category:Theatres in Houston, Texas needs to be renamed to :Category:Theaters in Houston, Texas - How do I do this? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The directions are here.  However I suspect that this will not succeed since this an accepted spelling and used in most categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should succeed. As per WP:ENGVAR we should use American English with American subjects and British English with British subjects. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming categories 

message: I would like to see dots such as "•" or similar to replace the "|" that seperates the categories, for aesthetics reasons. It is much easier on the eyes, as the wouldn't be any confusion between 1s, Is and so forth. Many templates now use dots instead of |'s so any opinions. 
I don't know if this is the right place for this, and if not redirection would be appreciated.  The Windler  talk  10:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-posted at WP:VP. Don't worry.  The Windler  talk  09:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dots instead of | 

message: when patrolling new pages i occasionally see pages whose only "category" is "stubs" (see Remote Data Exchange Protocol as an example), my inclination is to tag it with "uncategorised", so as to flag it to those who enjoy categorising articles but as it has a "category" that seems wrong too.  could someone clue me in as to current policy/preference? thanks Mission Fleg (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the stub templates do create a category, it is only temporary. I see no problem either adding appropriate categories or tagging it as uncategorized. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  stubs and uncategorised 

message: :This is the place for discussion following the deletion review close on September 30, 2008
I was the original nominator of renaming (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 14#Coastal_and_port_cities_and_towns) these categories. My intention was to make a smoother integration with the general settlements hierarchy and between the Coastal and Ports and harbours hierarchies.
It is fine to have for instance :Category:Coastal towns in Australia or :Category:Port cities in Canada. What I want is that these should belong to :Category:Coastal settlements in Australia and :Category:Port settlements in Canada. I.e. the settlements categories should be mandatory, but subordinate structures hinging on types of settlements should be added freely. since Port settlements is unidiomatic, and according to some ambiguous, I propose to change this term to Portside settlements. __meco (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither "port settlements" nor "portside settlements" make any meaningful sense in English. Also, calling any major city a "coastal settlement" makes something of a mockery of the encyclopaedia - some might argue it is political correctness gone mad, that we can't refer to cities in case we hurt townspeople's feelings or something. The category for example :Category:Host cities of the Summer Olympic Games has never been argued, nor would it be. Orderinchaos 05:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why the main point of my argument continues to elude you and if I'm really that awful at presenting my ideas. Neither here nor in previous discussions on the deletion review page or on Australian Wikipedians' notice board do you even touch upon the reason I give for wanting to make these changes but instead you keep harping on these suggested names which you find so abhorent as if they were the centrepiece of the proposal, and instead of even attempting to be constructive you seem rather intent on mocking the whole initiative – again, with continually only addressing an incidental point which has no importance whatsoever to the core of my argument. __meco (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given they were the names these things were actually changed to, I think the proposal can stand or fall on the basis of them. The purpose *does* entirely elude me, as I see no case for the existing system not working, which is the usual reason why a major worldwide change would be proposed. At present, it appears to me as a (flawed) solution looking for a problem. Orderinchaos 08:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The incentive for initiating this process has all along been to harmonize category hierarchies hinging on settlements located near bodies of water, be those lakes, rivers or oceans. In the plain settlements hierarchy :Category:Settlements is the top category and a diffusion based on size (cities, towns, villages basically) and location derives from that (see :Category:Settlements by country) . When adding a third property, such as location next to a waterbody, it is important to the flow and coherence of the category structure at large that these settlements (or you may want to use communities as your preferred generic term) are categorized according to a scheme which is analogous and compatible with the existing dual property structure. __meco (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what way, though, is the current system deficient? Orderinchaos 08:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coastal and port cities and towns – after the deletion review 

message: Please see comment I made here about obtaining and recording gender (male/female) metadata. Opinions would be welcomed. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on gender metadata 

message: Were maintenance categories always hidden?  I thought I used to be able to see them but maybe I was wrong.  --DerRichter (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hidden categories that existed before the feature was implemented would have been visible, so yes, many maintenance categories were visible. I think hidden categories got switched on around February 2008. It will have been announced in the Signpost back then, and I'll link you to two of the early discussions: 1 and 2. Those links, and the original Signpost announcement and mailing list announcements should also be summarised somewhere. Here we go: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-25/Technology report and wiki-tech mailing list post from Tim Starling. Carcharoth (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: And just in case you didn't realize, you can still see them if you want, by selecting "Show hidden categories" in your user prefs.--Kotniski (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --DerRichter (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance Categories 

message: It looks to me like a very recent change, but I can't find any traceof it in the template. When I add the template "uncategorized" to a page, it is now listed in the :Category:Category needed and in :Category:Uncategorized pages. It used to place them only in the latter, and it seems to me unnecessary to list it in two pages with the same purpose eventually. IF anyonehas any idea what has changed, and will undo it (assuming there is no good reason for the change), I'ld be grateful. Fram (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it depend on what namespace you're in (i.e. whether it's an article, a talk page, a template page or whatever)?--Kotniski (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, forgot to check back after posting here. I only noticed it in articles, and it still happens. When I add "uncategorized" to a page like Valdez High School, it is listed in the two categories, and I haven't got a clue why. Fram (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On further checking, could it be that one is the page for all uncategorized pages, and the other is the cat for all uncategorized pages per month? It is nearly empty because smackbot works fast and good, which means that pages ithout a month soon get moved into the latest month category... Allright, resolved! Fram (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncategorized pages now in two cats 

message: Just had a look at the article on the C. C., an old  manuscript by a Canadian missionary depicting "first Nation people", the problem is, that there was no tag for "Illustated Manuscript" or "Visual Anthropology or "Pictures of Native Americans". As I am generally interested in these things, I am a bit puzzled.--Radh (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codex Canadiensis 

message: *Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Categories
Your thoughts and insight would be welcome. - jc37 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dash in category names 

message: ...that can find articles which fall under two or more specific categories? It could be something like Boolean search, like combining :Category:People from British Columbia and :Category:1968 births in order to find someone who was born in 1968 AND was either born or raised in British Columbia. --Toussaint (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While a more sophisticated version has been discussed a simple version of this is already available using the Wikipedia search box.  See Wikipedia:Categorization#Searching_for_articles_in_categories.  To get your example you would search for incategory"People from British Columbia" incategory:"1968 births".  It doesn't look like there are any pages that intersect. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know of a search tool... 

message: A user has been creating and populating dozens of categories based on ethnicity, like , with articles which mostly do not claim the person of Igbo ancestry. He says that he is sorting on the basis of name without a reliable source. When I reverted these edits, he simply reverts mine. Can someone (an admin) rectify the situation and talk to user:Ukabia about it?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories and ethnicity 

message: :Category:2008-2009 New Years Honours
and wondered what peoples views were as their does not seem to be a precedence with this category. But maybe it would be useful?
安東尼 TALK 圣诞快乐 15:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I saw this (Category:2008-2009 New Years Honours) category had been created... 

message: Should the articles listed in :Category:WikiProject TUGS articles be using some sort of "Listas" parameter to make them show up as "Article X" as opposed to "Talk:Article X"? Or is this standard? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to reply here or on my talk page, as this is specific to me and might not be much help to anyone else. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not possible. You can choose how you want them sorted, but not how you want them displayed! Martin 15:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question about categorisation 

message: How do users know which category to put articles into without definitions for categories?  Why isn't there a section under "creating a category" that encourages users to add a definition for their newly-created category?  Something that describes what should go in the category, what does not go in the category, and points to other categories where the "things that don't go here" go. Mojodaddy (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category definitions 

message: I've posted a request for comment here as I'm not sure how accurate, applicable, or useful, a lot of the categories on biographical user pages are. pablohablo. 12:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-categorisation? 

message: How do we categorize album art on wikipedia? I was looking at :Category:Album covers and shocked to see 7 subcategories for bands (although we probably have tens of thousand articles on bands....) So why don't we have more subcategories? Why don't we break up album covers by band?? Alternatively, why on earth do we have those 7? they seem pretty random, and would wager they were independently created in good faith, not realizing that we don't do that... anyway, should we delete those 7, or should we start creating tens of thousand new categories, and populating them with album covers? (side note I came across :Category:Images of musical groups first, and it seems like these, at the very least should be renamed "album covers", as that is what 8 of them are for). Anyone have an opinion on these? Is there past precedent concerning these, or should I simply put them before CfD and let the community decide?-Andrew c [talk] 16:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If :Template:Non-free album cover was modified to include a band name, as to automatically categorize the band album covers as the above (with one manual step for each band to categorize the band's cover category under the Album Covers category).  People would have to go through and manually add that, but it would be worthwhile. --MASEM 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Even if those seven were created "inadvertantly" by a few users, I would say to leave them. Since this is all behind the scenes, maintenance categorization, it doesn't hurt anything, and the cats may have been created in order to keep an eye on a certain group of images. -Freekee (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, good then. I do want to propose that the 8 ones be renamed to "[band] album covers" as opposed to what they are now, "[band] images". -Andrew c [talk] 01:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking for a strict hierarchy, I would say that cat:band album covers should be a subcat of both cat:album covers and cat:band images. Cat:band images should contain images used in band articles that aren't album covers. Some of those are set up correctly, if underpopulated. -Freekee (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album art categories 

message: This has come up after the renaming of the century categories and glancing at the contents.  In many cases the categories were not well populated and a discussion on the 'decade' categories was raised by me with the following:
What purpose do decade categories serve? Are they simply a way of breaking down larger categories? If so, maybe they should only be used when absolutely needed. Maybe favor by year categories instead since that would limit the parent categories to 100 entries, not overly large. If that happed, then the misclassification of the 00 years would also be solved. It would also remove more cases of ambiguity over what 1800s means in categories. Yea you can define this to be 10 years and not 100 years, but does that remove ambiguity?
If the use of decade categories was reduced, it would not create a problem in the size of a category since it would go from 10 to 100 subcategories.  It would eliminate the misuse of, or ambiguity, you choose, of what a decade is.  Is is a decade containing years 1-10, or 11-20 or years that share the common middle two digits like 2000s which is 2000 - 2009.  If we were using the first approach, there would not be a major issue since the categories would roll up into the century categories correctly.  However the latter approach does not correctly roll up into the century categories with out listing one of this by year in stead of by subcategory.
A side effect of the current categories is the use of decade based category navigation boxes.  These work for a specific 10 year cycle and are on the category page for the years that are in the category.  These could be eliminated without any loss of information.  I'll note that in many cases all of the subcategories are added by these templates so that they would need to be added if the templates are removed.  
The other significant inclusion occurs when you group under a period category, say :Category:Middle Ages (talk about an article in a category!).  Here you could simply include the century categories to cover the time periods.  For smaller periods you could included the year categories.  
The policy here only addresses years.  I'd like to propose adding something that conveys the following:
#. The normal time parent of year categories is the century categories
#. The normal time parent of century categories is the millennium categories
#. The use of decade categories is deprecated
#. Period categories are acceptable
#. Navigation templates that only cover the subcategories are not necessary and should not be used
I guess the largest issue with not using 10 year (decade) categories is that a century category category could be come rather large if articles were not upmerged to a year category.  I'd argue that if you considered two or three articles reasonable for the year subcategories, the century categories would not directly contain too many categories to make navigation difficult.
OK, have at it. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time period categories 

message: This page contains a 'see also' link to Wikipedia:Sister category but no actual discussion of the term. Could someone please clarify the exact meaning of 'sister category' and how it differs from the more basic concept of a 'similar/related category'? Normally I would have asked the editor who created the page, but s/he hasn't edited since October. Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister category 

message: It's about time for a complete rewrite of this page, to rationalize it and make it clear what we're tying to say. And no sooner said than done - at User:Kotniski/Cat you will find my proposed new wording. This also takes in the substantial content of WP:Categorization and subcategories, so I'm proposing that that page be merged (i.e. redirected) to this one.
Advantages of/changes in the new version:
*Quite a lot shorter, logically arranged, free of certain outdated, vague, meaningless and (especially) duplicated advice, so valuable information is much easier to find and understand
*New explicit definitions introduced to make discussion of proposed changes easier and more focused 
*Clearly stated "rules" which may be somewhat aspirational, but seem to represent what the guidelines were trying to say before - and having them set out explicitly makes it easier to work on them if we think they need amending
*Acknowledgement that hard redirects now work.
*Certain things removed (can be put back if we want, but they seem unnecessary to me):
:(1) "too many categories" tag on articles (if the categories exist, then the article ought to be in them - the problem would be with the categorization schemes, so it is not the article that should be tagged)
:(2) "cycles are usually avoided" section (if we stick to the logical subcategorization principles as set out in my draft, then cycles will usually be avoided anyway - we don't need to make any extra effort to avoid them, and in any case the current guidance explicitly doesn't forbid them, so isn't a lot of help)
:(3) list of bugs and projects - these lists are apparently not being kept up to date, and in any case would be better moved to a WikiProject page than cluttering up the guideline, which ought to be quite stable
Please comment, in particular if you think there's something important in the current guidance that I've left out.--Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  REWRITE 

message: As demonstrated in this discussion, there appears to be a change in consensus on how to structure the state categories.  Rather then try to resolve this in rename discussions, I think we need to take a look at this and decide how to deal with this.  In the past, we commonly included the territories within the by state categories.  It looks like that consensus is no longer present, so the question is what to do.
Let me use :Category:Shopping malls in the United States as an example.  I think consensus is to now split the contents into :Category:Shopping malls in the United States by state and :Category:Shopping malls in the United States by territory.  Is this where consensus is?  Should we split all categories that include states and territories at the US level?  Do we need to create parent categories for these subcategories like :Categories by territory of the United States?  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States by state/by territory 

message: A few weeks ago, a user expressed concern in a CfD discussion that some editors were creating category redirects as a way of renaming categories without going through the CfD process (and where speedy renaming was not appropriate).  For the benefit of anyone who wants to monitor this, I have added to User:RussBot/category redirect log a section listing all new category redirects created since the last bot run.  Note, for example, that several populated cricket-related categories were turned into redirects a few days ago.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category redirects as avoidance of CfD 

message: I don't play around much with categories, but in my recent expansion of Rosewood massacre, there is a sizable section on compensation for victims, using the US federal government's precedent of compensating Japanese Americans interred during WWII. When I searched for reparations, I found it's a disambig page with a few topics that are related. Might be a good idea for a category to link all these articles together. --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category needed? 

message: Could someone tell me how to go about changing the name of a catagory thanks. BigDuncTalk 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is explained in (excruciating) detail at WP:CFD.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure is thanks. BigDuncTalk 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename a CAT 

message: There are currently a number of categories that are used to sort articles by temporal status, for example :Category:Current events and :Category:Future elections. Recently there have been a number of discussions regarding such categories at CFD, which have resulted in some, but not all, of these categories being deleted, and it is getting to the point where administrators are closing without or against consensus on the back of earlier discussions. I think it would be a good idea to gauge the opinions on the community as a whole regarding this, and discuss whether an ammendment to WP:CAT is needed to explicitly encourage or discourage use of such categories. Also, would the use of hidden categories be a viable compromise solution? --GW… 15:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't have as much problems with the categories as with the templates. Categories aren't big, colourful banners on top of an article, after all. How would these categories be useful when hidden, tho? --Conti|✉ 12:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporal categories 

message: While doing new page patrol I came across Sae Miyazawa. She is a member of AKB48 and we have several articles about the group and its members. I am about to create a :Category:AKB48 and put all these articles in it. I have created categories like this before, but I want to check that I am doing it right. Should there be a category like this, or is it too redundant to Template:AKB48? What parent categories would be appropriate? :Category:Japanese musical groups, but not :Category:Girl groups? Btw, what is a "distinguished" category? This page never explains that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, categorizing the articles is not wrong, so go ahead, if you want. But there is a fairly complete navbox, so it doesn't seem necessary, but there could be articles, at some point, that don't appear in the navbox, but could appear in the category. That aside, given the number of redlinks in the navbox, I'd say that it's the navbox that's redundant to the category. OTOH, the navbox gives better organization that categories, unless you have a lot of subcats. How's that for an answer? ;-) -Freekee (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the easy route and added Category:AKB48 to . That should be fine until someone wants subcategories for group members, albums etc. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for a music group 

message: I think we should perhaps acknowledge the possibility of combining list and topic categories into one in some cases, to create "list-and-topic" categories. I've raised an example at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 16#Category:Voivodeships of Poland topics - it might be worth discussing the general principle by way of that CfD discussion. --Kotniski (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List-and-topic categories 

message: Someone is trying to tell me that since county navigation templates are about counties, they belong in the county's category.  My understanding from practice and WP:CAT is that only articles belong in the encyclopedic categories.  Comments?  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree ("only articles" is what I believe you meant - so no templates).--Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the "someone".  It's always been the practise to categorise more than articles.  Is it going to help the project when I (or any other user) can't find a county template in a county category?  Notice that the cited page prohibits adding images to non-image-specific categories, but says nothing about templates.  Moreover, notice that there's an example method listed for how to categorise templates in categories separately from anything else — there's no need to use a funny character that's not on a keyboard to categorise a template if a category contains nothing but templates.  Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those templates are an article navigation aid.  Categories are a navigation aid.  What point is severed by including the template in the category when it is on the actual articles?  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that it might help editors sometimes, but we must try to optimize the encyclopedia for readers first. Readers browsing for articles in categories should not have to be distracted by strange things like templates that serve no purpose to them. --Kotniski (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Depends on the template, I suppose. If it's a stand-alone navbox (not parameter-dependent) then I suppose someone might find it useful (though normally they would just go to an article which contains the navbox). If we intend certain templates to be reader-facing, then we should perhaps categorize those separately, and name them and their categories in ways that readers will understand (for example, using "navigation box(es)" rather than the opaque name "template(s)").--Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates in encylopedic categories 

message: I've been doing some more work on , which is intended as a universal description template for category pages. I'd be grateful for any comments or improvements (about the template itself, its documentation, or its existing transclusions).--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catdesc template 

message: From former overcategorization, we've now gone to the other extreme. There are now just a few countries in :Category:Countries and none in e.g. :Category:European countries. This makes it very hard to carry out certain common tasks, like exporting all country articles, or making a book with all articles about Euroepan countries.
I suggest that we repopulate these categories. Zocky | picture popups 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea is continued at #Eponymous cats below.--Kotniski (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undercategorization 

message: FYI, one of the issues is categorization of redirects
 and  have been nominated for deletion on 4 May 2009. See WP:TFD and WP:CFD. 
76.66.202.139 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Redirects from other capitalisations and Template:R from other capitalisation 

message: Editors of this page may be interested in this discussion, about deprecating the inclusion of external links on disambiguation and category pages.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related guideline change 

message: At these category talk pages: Dichotomies and Cognitive science literature, I have put a list of articles that I think have been wrongly assigned to the category (and another editor says they should be in the category). I would appreciate some opinions (I can see it's somewhat off-topic here, but I can't find a better place). Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference of opinion on categories 

message: I hope this is a good place to ask this question — the category's talk page reminds me that such pages are often not widely watched, and I feel a bit silly asking at the help desk.
What is the best way to categorize an animated serial that was a segment in another (non-animated) programme?  The article in question is The Infinite Quest, an animated Doctor Who serial that aired as part of the series Totally Doctor Who.  The closest category I can find is :Category:Animated television series, but technically speaking "The Infinite Quest" wasn't a television series, since it aired as part of another programme.  Should this go in the parent category, :Category:Animated series?  Or should :Category:Animated television series be renamed to something like :Category:Animation on television, since it also contains :Category:Animated television specials, which are also technically not series? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marginal case 

message: Input welcomed at the draft RfC (mentioned above under #Eponymous cats): at Wikipedia:Categorization/Eponymous RFC.--Kotniski (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC reminder 

message: We've a couple of related nominations, intended to help disentangle the many cross-categorization and category intersections that have arisen recently:
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:People by race or ethnicity
**eliminating race categories (leaving ethnicity only)
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#People not by ethnicity
**splitting ethnicity from nationality (leaving nationality only)
Should the first be successful, we must amend the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies and related guidelines to clarify that "race" is not appropriate for categorization.
The second is somewhat dependent on the first. However, the inclusion of ethnic "origin" and "descent" is already against policy without notability, and these should never have been intermixed with the less contentious (more easily verifiable) nationality categories.
:--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disentangling race & ethnicity 

message: Comparing the IBM article's categories:
IBM
Category:Companies established in 1888
Category:Companies based in Westchester County, New York
Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average
Category:Electronics companies of the United States
... (more "companies" categories)
Category:UML Partners
Category:Cloud computing vendors
Category:Cloud computing providers
to those of IPL Information Processing Limited
Category:Software companies of the United Kingdom
Category:Management consulting firms of the United Kingdom
... (more "companies", "consulting firms" categories)
Category:Media technology
Category:Transportation software
Category:Government software
Category:Bath and North East Somerset
Category:Companies based in Somerset
Company/firm/vendor/provider and location categories are common to both.  Only the IPL article includes software and technology categories - categories relating to IPL's products.  Thus the question: should the article for a company include categories for the products of that company?
The same question, in a different form: Should a product category page, say :Category:Word processors, include both products and companies that manufacture them? 
And a 2nd question: Where should I have found this answer without having to ask here?  The alternate form for that question is "Where should the answer to this question be placed so that others can find it?" Thanks 69.106.253.194 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know the answer personally, but a better place to ask would probably be Wikipedia talk:Categorization. The people there specialize in categories, and are more knowledgeable in the criteria for articles to be in certain categories.FingersOnRoids 01:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizing company articles 

message: the :Category:Stub templates was deleted some time ago. Before creating it again, I want to ask: Is it ok if I create it? there are lots of stub templates categories: :Category:Drink stub templates, :Category:Japan stub templates, :Category:Singapore stub templates, :Category:Astronomy stub templates, they all belong to some parent categories, whose top level parent should be :Category:Stub templates Ark25 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there's some history to this page.  I'd recommend reading through Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 30#Category:Stub templates to figure out why it was deleted in the first place.  If/when you recreate it, you should probably address the reasons for why it was deleted in the first place.  Matt (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for stub templates 

message: I've reworded the section on WP:CAT#Eponymous categories to make it less strict. Previously it said that eponymous categories shouldn't be placed in the list categories that their corresponding articles belong to; now it says that they can for those categories for which that convention has been adopted (as seems to be common practice, and convenient in many cases). However I've retained the principle that when eponymous categories are so placed, that shouldn't exclude the corresponding articles from the category. I know this principle is often quite often violated too, but general opinion seems to be that it shouldn't be. If there are no objections to the present wording, then I think we should be looking at trying to put it into practice (i.e. re-populating the categories from which articles have been wrongly excluded due to the presence of their eponymous cats). (This continues the thread #Undercategorization above.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't personally see the value in deeming "eponymous categories" to be any different from any other duplicate categorization scenario. IMO, there's simply no need for the double-filing, and no need to set them apart as a special categorization rule, because it doesn't actually function any differently than any other duplicate categorization. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the difference is that the "eponymous categories" logically have no right to be subcategories at all; they are just listed as such (in some cases) by convention. For example, :Category:France is not logically a subcategory of :Category:European countries (since it doesn't contain countries). That's why they need to be mentioned specifically in the guideline. And they're a bit different from some other duplicate categorization scenarios: typically all members of a duplicated subcategory will appear in the parent, but with eponymous cats only the eponymous article itself is expected to be duplicate-categorized.--Kotniski (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm saying is that I don't understand why it's necessary to deem them a special case, not that I don't understand why it's currently deemed to be a special case. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed up to a point, but even WP editors have to work according to some established guidelines, and we can establish those guidelines in such a way as to make things more useful. How is it useful to readers, then, not to have any "countries" categories (or in practice to have a few randomly selected such categories) in the place they would expect to find them at the bottom of articles like France?--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't see how the word 'logically' has anything to do with this.  WP rules are whatever WP editors make up and use.  I see nothing but bizarre results in any thinking that would preclude epon categories from having their article in it.  If some reader goes to a category called 'France', why would they be denied the article named France, which is the main/core/central set of facts about the subject of the article, all the other articles being detail expansion thereof. Why would WP have rules that might lead someone to think that this is appropriate. Bizarre.  Hmains (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been a misunderstanding here I think - no-one's suggesting excluding an article from its own eponymous category.--Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree with Kotniski. Making up arbitrary and unintuitive definitions for categories is unhelpful for readers. As a casual reader, it is rather bizarre that the article about France is not categorized in :Category:European countries but that it is categorized presently in :Category:French-speaking countries, :Category:G8 nations, and :Category:Liberal democracies. If the rationale of exclusivity were consistently applied, it would seem that if an eponymous category exists, that that should be the ONLY category to appear on the eponymous article and all other categorization would be on the category. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are giving good examples of the current category implementation of category rules that are written in such a way that few follow because they do not understand them.  The implementation is poor; the rules are poor.  I am trying to get thinking going that would results in better written rules that could be understood by more editors and maybe even implemented by them easily.  With the rules as they are, it is any editors's guess what to do and we see the results everywhere of their guessing.  Hmains (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, well I guess I'm just completely confused by precisely who is suggesting precisely what. The guidance regarding categories has always been pretty bad, but that is mostly because there is no true consensus as to what a category is on Wikipedia. Some categories are for things that have some, often tenuous, association with a subject. Other categories for things that are all of the same type. There are probably some categories that are a blend. These different purposes for categories can often cause some confusing when moving up or down a category hierarchy, as when a loose "associated with" category shows up as a subcategory of a more strictly defined "type of" category. older ≠ wiser 03:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I've tried to improve the guidance recently, not by changing the rules (I hope) but by rewriting it to make it clearer what we have. It remains true, though, that what we have doesn't answer every question. It does answer this question, however - it says (as the old WP:Categorization and subcategories used to say) that the presence of an eponymous category as a "subcategory" of a list category should not cause the corresponding article to be excluded from that list category (WP:EPON). Hmains, you obviously don't agree with this rule - how would you propose amending it?--Kotniski (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

text: ...Because editors don't read articles?  Huh.  Anyway, the exact same navigation needs exist for articles as well as subcategories so there is no reason to categorize them differently, so option 1 is the proper option.  France should be in :Category:European countries because it is a member of that classification; it is not just a member of its own topic and readers should not be forced to pop through that extra step if they want to go to related articles rather than just sub-topics.  Nor can one even see on the article what categories exist that the topic belongs in if purely eponymous categorization is followed.  Postdlf (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I fail to see a case being made for a change.  What you are proposing seems to cause more confusion in what categories contain and solves nothing. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by a change? I'm proposing that we do as it says in the guidelines, or if not, then at least decide rationally what we do want to do and document that in the guidelines. The current situation, where people in different places do different and incompatible things, seems to be the way to maximize the confusion. --Kotniski (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, that template is at :Template:Countries of Europe. —JAO • T • C 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:European countries and :Template:Countries of Europe??? Poor T.C. Mits who has to figure out what the different names imply and why France might be in one but not the other!  69.106.253.194 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're going a bit off topic here, but the ordinary reader never has to see or parse the name "Template:xxx" - they just see the navbox which the template produces. And I would imagine the vast majority of readers, on clicking a link to France say, expect to go to the article on France (from which they can, if they want, click again to go to the category France), rather than to go to the category first. Basically, the article, with all its links, is a far more usable tool for finding information about France (even such information as is not in that article itself) than the category page is.--Kotniski (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your are correct in that users don't see or parse Template,... etc.  but look, for example, at :Category:Operating systems.  The user sees both the category Operating Systems and the displayed-template Operating Systems at the same time. I would reasonably expect the category page "European countries" to include the template "Countries of Europe" - templates do, after all, provide useful navigation helps.  In the particular case of operating systems, there is little overlap between the category information (subcategories) and the template (specific articles).  Users may, as you suggest, do better to go from article to article via links, but navigation with categories and templates should still be an organized coherent whole.   tooold (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eponymous cats 

message: The RfC mentioned several times above, on eponymous categories and what to do about them, is now live. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Eponymous RFC and comment at that talk page. Thanks. Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eponymous categories RFC live 

message: I have left a note at Template_talk:Catmore#Link_to_Portal:Contents.2FCategorical_index that  (which is protected from editing) could have its "category" link go to a better destination. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catmore template 

message: See  - it's something I've seen other editors do also. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you referring to exactly? The unnecessary use of sort keys when the default has been defined? The use of ", The" at the end of the sort key? Something else?--Kotniski (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The text after the pipe determines the order in which articles appear in the category list. WP:Categorization#Sort_order Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I obviously missed that. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do people pipe like this? 

message: This RfC might interest some regular editors of this page:
* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia (RFC) — Could we have a wider view on the appropriate use of Wikipedia categories? (e.g. is :Category:Dyslexia appropriate for articles such as List of languages by writing system and categories such as :Category:Writing systems?
Since it's been filed as a "language" RfC, and it's not actually on the cat page itself, I thought that a little more advertising might be useful.  All editors are welcome.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on cat usage 

message: I have made this suggestion to expand the functionality of . Please comment. Thanks, —G716 <T·C> 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion regarding {{tl|catmore}} 

message: For those that believe category pages should contain useful information for readers and documentation for editors, please contribute at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_6#Template:Catdesc. If you think this template is fatally flawed, then please suggest how else we should be solving this problem. If you think the template is potentially useful, then please !vote to keep it;) (and suggest improvements to it if you can).--Kotniski (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted (roughly 4:1, the only 1 being Kotniski), so Kotniski took it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 18#Template:Catdesc.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Roughly 4:1 means exactly 2:1. Please stop this campaign of personalized criticism - I haven't done anything to offend you (have I? please say if I have), I don't know why you need to regard someone as an enemy just because they disagree with you on one or two things. --Kotniski (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Roughly 4:1" means 3:1 on the discussion itself, including closer, and 1 that asked for deletion on the Talk page and was quoted in the nomination:This monstrosity turns simple categories into a template that's terrifying to new editors and annoys even old hands like me. It should be deleted before it spreads (WP:CREEP). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  11:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Do you deny that everybody was supporting deletion (other than you)?--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The closer counts as a vote?? Anyway, does it matter? I hope we can carry on without any more of these unnecessary personal digs.--Kotniski (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save or delete template for documenting categories 

message: I've started a discussion here about what information is appropriate in category descriptions, with particular regard to how much information should be retained if  is to be deleted (see thread above). Please have a look.--Kotniski (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about category descriptions 

message: Aside from that above (separating the headings for separate comments), I also wanted to ask general opinions on lowercase category sorts. The relevant sentence in WP:CAT#Using sort keys is "Don't begin sort keys with lower case letters, unless you want to create a separate sublist (the ordering places lower case letters after all capital letters)." It doesn't specifically say we can't sort by lowercase, but I can see possible resistance when implemented in some locations. Take species articles categorized in their genus categories (only species in genus categories; this doesn't work for species categorized in higher taxa categories). Because in the binomial name the species epithet is always lowercase, the trend at WP:TOL articles seems to be to prefer the lowercase sort. E.g., see  and more impressively , where both uppercase and lowercase sorts are used. We had a brief discussion on this back in September at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive26#Scientific names in genus categories and the consensus appears to be for lowercase sorts. My question is: is this acceptable and within guidelines? If not, I'd like to argue for it. If so, I'd like to ask that this example possibly be included in the section as a place where lowercase sorts are preferred. Any thoughts? --Rkitko (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reasonable convention for sorting a specific group of categories has been developed, I'd like it to be documented here.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with WAS.--Kotniski (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowercase category sort 

message: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 6
*Template:Category unsourced – has no verifiable, reliable sources.
*Template:Category relevant? – both unsourced and irrelevant (unsupported by even a passing mention in the text)
I've nominated them for deletion, as they present an attractive nuisance. Editors may think it's a good idea to leave an unsourced or irrelevant category on an article, simply because these templates exist. Something like  for categories, except these present a large block of text.
In both cases, the category should be removed entirely – especially in the latter case. These have been used on biographical articles. In one case, the unsourced WP:GRS category has been left on the WP:BLP article for nearly two years! When I've removed the category, was reverted with the edit summary (revert: the fact that a maintenance item has been outstanding for a long time is not a reason to remove it.)
Please join the discussion.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We HAVE joined the discussion. You haven't. As witnessed by the fact that you keep making your edit. We call that "edit warring". The only right thing to do in Wikipedia is WAIT for the outcome of the discussion. NOT to act upon YOUR opinion. Consensus, in other words. (Stresses added to fascilitate understanding of the important things.) Debresser (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

text: *Stop these ad hominem personal attacks. As the nominator, I'm obviously part of the discussion. Your egregious misrepresentation is poisoning the well. AFAICT, there is no edit warring on that discussion.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no attacks, sorry. Ad hominem, or personal. In English or in Latin. The edit warring takes place on Wieland Speck, see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:William_Allen_Simpson_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_.29. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed no violation, before I'd even had an opportunity to respond. Moreover, irrelevant to this section's subject. A perfect example of your attempt to poison the well.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you discussing about a particular article now? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories that are unsourced or irrelevant 

message: Given that [Category:whatever] doesn't support explicitly attaching a source to a category assignment, what is the rule/convention for providing sources to support categorization? I don't think there is one, and IMO, allowing people to assign categories without explicit sources is a huge hole and the rules ought to be clarified. Long-term, MediaWiki should be extended to allow explicit sources for category assignment and most categorizations should have a source reference. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule is that the article content in general should support the categories that are on it. There's no place to add a special reference annotation for "why is this individual category here?", but an article shouldn't be added to any category for which the article's content itself doesn't explain why it's there. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that the category should be obvious when reading the article, or am I missing something?  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you are missing anything, but many articles are missing something, at least judging by the number of category assignments that are not supported by verifiable content in those articles. IMO, the lack of a method to explicitly assign a source to a category assignment means that category assignments are often unverifiable. Even when the article content does include sourced content that supports the assignment, the linkage may not be obvious or the content might be deleted in the future. Leaving things as they stand means there will be a constant stream of unverifiable category assignments despite the rules. I don't think WikiMedia supports explicit sources for category assignments so there's not much we can do except delete category assignments that aren't supported by the article content. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I commonly remove a category with the comment, 'Category not supported by article text'. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Obviously, if it is realy out of place. But if there is a chance that a little work could source the category, then that would be the preferable course of action. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources - A huge hole 

message: Level of maximum summarisation:
:::−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
:::Physics
:::Physics -> Biology
:::Physics -> Biology -> Physics 
:::−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Following summarisation level:
:::−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
:::Physics
:::Physics -> Biology      (precellular life)
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information      (Conditionality of animal motility; Knowledge, Learning, Memory, Science; Language, Logic)
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Technology      (Application of Knowledge / Learning / Memory / Information)
:::−−−−−−−−−−
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of Physics      (Physics, Physical Sciences)
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of Physics -> Technology  -> Technology of Physics      (Physical application of Technology; Technology applied to environment conditioning and to physical objects; Technology of generic machines / tools)
:::−−−−−−−−−−
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of "Physics -> Biology"      (Biology, Biological Sciences)
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of "Physics -> Biology" -> Technology  -> Technology of "Physics -> Biology"      (for instance, Health technology)
:::−−−−−−−−−−
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of "Physics -> Biology -> Perception, Information"      (Information and Knowledge Sciences; Linguistics, Logic)
:::Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of "Physics -> Biology -> Perception, Information" -> Technology  -> Technology of "Physics -> Biology -> Perception, Information"      (Information technology; for instance, Video and Audio technologies; Computers for information processing)
:::−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Of course, open to complementation.  --Faustnh (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, biology doesn't belong under physics. Everybody knows that life is made out of matter, that isn't the point of these categories. The articles in a physics category should be subject which would be studied in a physics class. Categories should also reflect the next level of abstraction of any particular article (x is a type of y), however this can become a matter of opinion quite quickly. The terms used should reflect what the academic department of a university would use.  I don't know how helpful the rest of this is as it is not my area. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, don't do it that way. (I don't know what else to tell you.) Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category backbone outline (basic category structure outline) 

message: Where is the best place to report circular references? And how can they be discovered? Like for example the list generated automatically here: :ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea#Circular_references. I noticed :Category:Epistemology <—> :Category:Knowledge for example Ark25 (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Discovery is by editors.  Cleanup would mean changing something.  That would require analysis on a case by case basis since a single solution would not work.  If someone has a tool that detects these, maybe list them as a subpage and link to the subpage on the main cat page so that other editors can work on fixing. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular references 

message: To the extent that categories are considered pages, we may want to consider the impact of :Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special characters.  As I understand it, this basically says don't use the special characters, with the exception of the apostrophe.  If you use dashes, you must provide a redirect from the hyphen version of the name.  
I think this means we should use special characters only in special cases it at all and since we can not provide a conventional redirect for any category we should stick with hyphens.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These are my feeling completely. As I have stated in various Cfd discussions also. We should add this to the guidelines. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that unless there is an objection, then simply pointing to the policy should suffice.  We would also need to add words to explain why we also use hyphens - technical limitations prevent us from implementing the policy of providing redirects. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much technical limitations, as Wikipedia superstition. Ordinary redirects would work perfectly well with categories (they don't recategorize pages, though developers have made efforts in that direction, but that's no real problem since we have bots that do that).--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm ok with this idea.  --Kbdank71 14:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of using ordinary (hard) redirects for categories?--Kotniski (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, right now, there is no bot programmed to service hard-redirect categories; instead, RussBot automatically changes any hard redirects it finds into soft redirects, and then re-categorizes pages based on the soft redirect template.  This could be changed if there is a consensus to do so, but not for a few weeks, because I am going on a wiki-break.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: No, I don't like the idea of using hard redirects at all.  I meant that as in I'm ok with Vegas's original idea of don't use special characters except for the apostrophe, and use hyphens.  --Kbdank71 16:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special characters in category names 

message: There is currently a section on the project page to guide editors on "What categories should be created". This guideline says that categories should be created that are "useful for readers" and based on essential defining features of article subjects.However, there is no guidance on what categories should not be created. I think this is important to discuss, at least for scientific and technical subjects. So I offer the following example / analogy. (Please don't shred the example. Instead think about how it might apply to other scientific / technical subjects that you have participated in editing.)
*The heart, uterus, stomach and bladder are muscular organs (use muscular tissue) as described in their respecitve WP articles. This is WP:Verifiable information.
*The determination of "useful" and "defining feature" is somewhat subjective, so an editor creates :Category:Muscular organs and populates it.
*There is no published material in the scientific fields of medicine or biology that ever categorizes organs in this manner.
Does the creation of this category then become original research? </br>Should there be a guideline here stating that for specialized, technical, or scientific subjects that a WP:Reliable source should be provided that demonstrates items are categorized in the proposed manner? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be too narrow to require that a given categorization is always reflected in reliable sources first.  There is room for creatively organizing information on Wikipedia, provided that you aren't inventing or misrepresenting facts by doing so.  But that issue could still be relevant to determining whether the category is useful or well-founded.  If no literature outside of Wikipedia uses a term (such as "muscular organ"), then that term shouldn't be used because it won't mean anything, and we shouldn't invent terms.  Category names should be completely obvious as to what articles should be included.  A category name that blandly describes a fact, such as :Category:Organs containing muscular tissue, might be appropriate as long as that is easily understood.  But then some understanding of the subject matter is required to determine whether the category is useful even though it is factual.  Using your example, given that organs (always? by definition?) consist of different kinds of tissue, it might not help anyone navigate articles or better understand the article subject.  The lack of any medical literature classifying organs by tissue type (as opposed to system) could arguably support that such a categorization scheme would not be worthwhile.  Postdlf (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a type of category that I don't think should exist, Conflicts in a particular year. See 's contributions -- any suggestions as to what to do? See here  where he removed a century category and replaced it with a category for a particular year. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The clarification suggested by ¢Spender1983 above is timely and welcome. As far as I am aware, categories are nowhere exempted from general wikipedia principles such as WP:NOR or WP:RS, but it would be useful to make that explicit in the guideline. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NOR and RS are just a start.  We also say that the categorization should be uncontroversial, which is a higher bar than RS. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What categories should NOT be created 

message: I would like to be able to to identify article that are in two separate and distinct categories. Example D'Aguilar National Park is in :Category:Articles lacking reliable references and it is in :Category:National parks of Queensland, I would like to be able to filter on articles that are in both (or any two) unrelated categories, so I could find references for National parks of Queensland and then apply them to all the related articles that need them. Does anyone have an idea of how this could be done? Jeepday (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Instructions for doing this are at WP:CAT#Searching for articles in categories (I believe it worked when I tried it).--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shoot - I've just realised it says it won't work on articles that have been categorized using templates - and the reliable references category probably does use a template. So it might not work after all.--Kotniski (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying Articles in 2 distinct Categories 

message: :Category:Five-string bass guitarists. There is a similar category for guitarists that us seven string guitars. There are many more bassists that use 5 string basses than 7 string guitars, but there is an article for Seven-string guitar and there isn't one for Five-string bass. Thanks for any opinions TheWeakWilled 04:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading about the 7 string guitar, it looks like it is very much related to a specific ethnic genre of guitar playing. So the 7 string guitarists would likely all be playing similar music, different from 6 string guitarists.  Is this so?  From the little I know about 5 string bass, it is not all that different from playing a 4 string, just with a larger range.  So it seems that people who play 5 string bass aren't all that different from people who play the 4 string one.  If I've characterized this correctly, I wouldn't recommend creating the category. If I've gotten this wrong, and there is something special and defining about playing the 5 string bass, than go ahead and create the category.  The true test is whether it survives cfd. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wondering if this category would be allowed... 

message: I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Should stub categories be in Wikipedia namespace rather than article namespace?. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub cats and article cats 

message: Please see here. Comments, ideas, and suggestions would be welcome. Thank you, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dashes in category names 

message: For the geographic entities that form borders between countries, like Kupa, known in Slovene as Kolpa, is it preferable to sort it as Kolpa or simply as Rivers in Slovenia? The article's title is "Kupa (river)". --Eleassar my talk 09:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that the category system doesn't handle these cases well. (You could put the category on the redirect page, I suppose, but that would cause more confusion.) I would say there's no point in sorting the article as Kolpa. People are going to be looking at an alphabetical list, and aren't going to be helped at all by having the entries ordered in some non-transparent non-alphabetical way. (You could put a note on the category page, noting this and any other cases where articles are found under non-Slovenian names.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put the category on the redirect. But some care needs to be exercised to avoid duplication -- that is, a single category should not contain both the article and a redirect to the article. older ≠ wiser 10:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But then the category won't appear on the article, which is not what we want.--Kotniski (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I rarely use categories to move in that direction. Perhaps make the link with alternate spelling more explicit by putting in the see also section something like: :Category:Rivers in Slovenia (:Category:Rivers in Slovenia) -- perhaps with some brief mention of the alternate name. older ≠ wiser 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still I think the article must be in the category - the category box at the bottom of the article is where people look for categories. If an explanatory note is required, it can be placed on the category page itself.--Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Absolutely a single category should contain both.  The redirected name will show in italics, this is fairly widely done. Rich Farmbrough, 12:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. What about the geographic disambiguations like Jezerski vrh? --Eleassar my talk 08:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's enough to use the  template (or  if there are non-geographical terms as well as >1 geographical ones). Disambiguation pages generally shouldn't be in other categories than those generated by the template.--Kotniski (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, turns out there already was something hidden away on that topic, but it said to put the category only on the redirect, which is contrary to what Rich says and what seems logical (we want readers to be able to find categories from articles). I've therefore changed it - but the same change would be necessary at WP:Categorizing redirects. Is everyone happy about this?--Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be on both, so someone looking in the category will find all versions. (There is an analogous position with schools (say) that change name - the old name should be a redirect categorised in the same way, mostly, as the article.) Occuli (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This potentially means editing quite a lot of redirect pages: in the case of rivers (like Danube etc), this could be the redirects for all the countries that the river flows through. "If the desired display text in a particular category is different from the title of the article..."  I think it should be explicitly stated when this is desired. It should also be rephrased - the desired display texts seem to be actually both the title of the redirect page and the title of the target article page. --Eleassar my talk 11:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortkeys for geographic entities with names in multiple languages 

message: We  need to spell out guideline on where templates are categorised. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the template specific categories or limit them to only those categories?  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I want spelled out. Some editors do not follow that system. I have encountered it most recently at Template talk:San Jose and Silicon Valley attractions#Navbox collapse settings and category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to making it clear that templates do not belong in article categories. This is especially confusing when they are sorted to the top of the list. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is what I would like to have spelt out in the guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 1, or if it exists, 2.  The purpose of main space categories is not to find templates, it is to find articles.  If the template already exists in all of the articles, as it should, then it is not difficult to find.  If you really still can't find the template, what links to the article should show a link from the template. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without agreeing or disagreeing, I'd say that this is precisely the question: whether a category should include only articles or not. Perhaps there is something to say for having templates, portals and whatever else in the category also. (After all, a category has not only articles: it has categories also, which we call subcategories.) Debresser (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, this has sat for a while and there appears to be consensus from the small number of participants in the discussion.  Is this strong enough to make the change? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates in article space 

message: The biggest hole that exists at CfD is the inability to define the term "defining". In the real world of article space, there are such guidelines as policies as WP:N that define what it means for an article to be "notable". An article that meets these qualifications is presumed to be notable and editors new and old can work to craft articles to meet that standard. As no such corresponding definition exists for "defining", we are left at CfD with playing a perpetual game to decide if a particular category does -- or does not -- meet the standard for retention. No editor can create a category by following any standard and have some measure of assurance that the category satisfies its requirements. The argument has been made that CfD does have standards, all of which are worded negatively. In other words, we can't tell you what IS defining, but we can tell you what is NOT. I suggest that the following definition be used: "A category is always presumed to be defining per WP:DEFINING, unless its use is specifically and directly excluded by a Category-based guideline or policy that prohibits it." If an editor believes that a category is not explicitly excluded and is thus "defining", the argument would be expressed by stating "Keep per WP:DEFINING". Arguments for deletion would explain how the inherent presumption of definingness is rebutted based on WP:CAT, WP:OCAT or other relevant policies and guidelines. Arguments such as "not needed" or "listify", which are not based on policy, would be ignored by closing administrators. Let's discuss, but I will start populating WP:DEFINING barring consensus on an alternative positive definition. Alansohn (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the need for some definition of the word "defining". The above proposal though is too unclear for me to understand. Apart from that, I think we should just add this definition to WP:CAT, and no need to create a WP:DEFINING. We really don't need any more guidelines on Wikipedia... Debresser (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DEFINING would likely be a redirect to a paragraph within WP:CAT. Alansohn (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: (I do have some suggestions for the types of categories that may be presumptively "defining", but I want to make sure we're on common ground before we get into that).  Postdlf (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Defining tends to almost always apply to people categories.  A little less so to other topics. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because people categories are created at a much greater (and reckless) pace?  But I've also seen it a lot in relation to places.  It's often an issue of a category reversing the proper relationship between two things, like categorizing a real place by the creative work that is set there ("Cities featured in Top Chef") rather than the creative work by where it is set, or the place by what landmarks are located there ("Cities with super-tall roller coasters") rather than the landmarks by where they are located.  Years ago I saw Agriculture categorized by :Category:Kansas; same issue.  Postdlf (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: If anything, there is a presumption that a particular fact is not defining of its subject(s).  Most information is not, which is why we don't (and shouldn't) categorize most facts, even though verifiable and sourced.  Postdlf (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we add something that says basic facts should not be used for categorizing since they are generally not defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem arises as to what a "basic fact" is. I would call birth year and death year "basic facts", but we do categorize them. Without actual examples of non-defining information being provided, we're not much closer because we leave interpretation entirely up to the reader. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining "defining" 

message: I am puzzled why I start seeing numerous usages like  in Manure management. At first glance, I fail to see the corresponding rule. - Altenmann >t 17:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it was added just from some kind of AWB quirk.  There's no need to manually pipe-sort an article like this in categories because it will automatically be alphabetized by its title.  Postdlf (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's a difference between Manure Management and Manure management. Sort keys should have capitals for the first letter of each word (at least that's what it says in the guideline, though obviously if a different convention is used within a given category, then that's the convention to follow).--Kotniski (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see such guideline. What I see is  "A case-insensitive sort can be achieved by following the convention that initial letters of words are capitalized in the sort key, but other letters are lower case. For example, use "Dubois" in sort keys rather than "DuBois"." I.e., it can (i.e., if required), rather than must. - Altenmann >t 23:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

text: What does that accomplish?  Postdlf (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would accomplish case-insentitive alphabetization: (Big Bang, Big dick, Big Lie), rather than (Big Bang, Big Lie, Big dick). Notably, it will put side-by-side such pages as Good Morning and Good morning (bad example, but you get the idea). - Altenmann >t 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm surprised to learn that categories' alphabetical sorting is case-sensitive.  It seems to me that, if anything, the situations in which we'd want case-sensitive sorting would be fewer than those in which we'd want case-insensitive sorting, so maybe the software should be changed?  In fact, I can't even think of any examples in which case-sensitivity would be preferred; maybe with people names, but we have to manually pipe those anyway to sort by last names.  Postdlf (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the software should be changed - there's been a bug report at bugzilla for about 5 years, but our so-called developers haven't managed to solve the problem yet.--Kotniski (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

text: It is in the guideline, though rather hard to find, just above #Using sort keys. But "simply wrong" doesn't apply here - readers never see the sort key, so it doesn't matter whether it conforms to rules of English usage. This convention has the advantage that many article titles follow that pattern anyway, making it less often necessary to specify sort keys - the same could be argued of a convention of not using any capitals except for the first letter, but I see no reason to change.--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEFAULTSORT:Manure Management 

message: Rank free articles: I for one feel that the category importance scale should be abandoned. It is subjective and misleading. In my bid for rank free articles in Wikipedia - I give some examples of rank free proposals given in the biological literature, which relates to the way that Wikipedia ranks wildlife pages. Endangered species, for example, are more often than not rated with high importance (I think always). However, there is lots of published research arguing that a conservation focus directed solely on species level of biodiversity is a dangerous premise (e.g., []). It is true that endangered species are important - but for different reasons a common species could also be important, such as the ecological services it contributes over a broad geographic area. The keystone species concept is another example of this kind of ranking. Some conservationists try to highlight the great importance of one 'keystone' species over another. However, a critical examination of this concept by some of the biggest minds in conservation studies (Mills, L.S.; Soule, M.E.; Doak, D.F. (1993). "The Keystone-Species Concept in Ecology and Conservation". BioScience 43 (4): 219-224.) suggests that it be abandoned because it is not clear what constitutes a keystone species. The review shows that keystone species is used frequently without any data to back up the claim and it is not entirely clear what research could be used to make this kind of determination. This debate is also similar to those in taxonomy - where the 'new' approach is rank free taxonomy (e.g., []). I have found the importance scale in wikipedia articles a great source of frustration for this reason. There are different reasons why some species are important - but those reasons are not always clear, especially to a wiki editor. Hence, all the literature review on ranking in the biological literature suggests that this type of approach be abandoned. Although it has its supportors - I feel that the place for ranking does not belong in wikipedia. If this ranking scale of high to low importance continues to be used - we will find ourselves in a perpetual loop of debate over what is and what is not of high or low importance and most of the ranking will be irrelevant and totally misleading. External ranking needs to be abandoned so that the reader can make a personal determination of how important the article is. However, I am not opposed to giving some articles a high importance rank if it is more generally applicable to an entire sub-set of articles. Biology, Sustainability, Conservation biology, Ecology, and Evolution are examples of articles that should have high importance - but ranking a species of salamander over a toad as high versus low importance has no place in wikipedia. How do we fix this problem?Thompsma (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank free articles 

message: The RFC on switching to hard redirects is now open; please see WP:Hard category redirects and discuss on that talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard redirects 

message: A while ago, there was a CFD in which several categories that shared a name with musicians were deleted. The rationale given for deletion by the original nominator was "overcategorization." There was no clear consensus in the original deletion discussion to keep or delete. But the closing admin stated simply "the result was delete" with no further explanation (a violation of WP:JUSTAVOTE). Following this outcome, a filed a deletion review in which I brought this up. Still, comments were evenly split. I always assumed that when there is a deletion discussion, and consensus cannot be reached, that it should default to keep/restore. I gave several reasons for keeping, most notably from this guideline:
Every Wikipedia article should belong to at least one category. Similarly every category (except Category:Contents, which is the root of the hierarchy) should be placed in at least one parent category.
Given this, in general, every musical artist for whom there are articles on at least several of their albums and at least several of their songs should have a category sharing their own name to serve as a parent category.  Who agrees? Who disagrees? Shaliya waya (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories named after musicians