Category talk:Series of books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is the test used to decide whether a set of books should be identified as a subcategory? I can't detect any consistency. — B.Bryant 20:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see Category talk:Novel sequences#Rename to avoid confusion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Piped categorisation[edit]

Why have all the subcategories been piped to '*'? I don't see anywhere that says not to do this, but "Making sure all the subcategories appear on the first page" isn't one of the reasons given for using this feature. Percy Snoodle 12:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I find the piping to "*" strange as well, and unless someone objects, I'm going to change them all not to use the "*", when I have a little more time. JIP | Talk 13:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It is irrational, and I've just undone it. The problem is that, because this page is alphabetically split in two, all of the N-Z subcategories are now relegated to the N-Z page. Since there are only 28 subcats, it would be better for them all to be displayed on both half-pages. But as far as I can tell, the alphabetic split is automatic. So the only solution I can see is for someone to undertake the hard work of tackling the bloated list of articles in this category, and reclassifying enough of them into appropriate subcategories that the page will no longer be split. Wareh 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sortkey issue[edit]

By using the "*" sortkey, all the sub-cats appear on the first page of the category; from what I gather, this makes it easier to find a sub-cat under which to file an article, as it appears the first time you access the category page. (You can also use a space, as in [[Category:Series of books| Foo series]].) There was some discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Subcategories. If this annoys anyone, please revert it with impunity, and I plead obsessive compulsiveness. Cheers, Her Pegship 15:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the line "I would only recommend this if there are a small number of subcategories (a dozen or so)" is probably the important one here. Piping everything to star breaks the contents links; if you go to F, you won't see the F subcats. I'm certainly in favour of depiping them. Percy Snoodle 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Guys, go ahead. I'm not invested in the piping thing by any means, so I'm not going to revert you or anything. Her Pegship 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Percy Snoodle 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I commented above before reading this thread. I'm not trying to be a stickler for rational order, but this use of * seems to violate the organizational purpose, though I do appreciate its practical motivation. The fact is that almost every page in the category needs reclassification into a subcategory (and we obviously need well-chosen new subcategories too), and that will solve the problem. Wareh 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)