Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Lists (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Embedded list of notables with a see also to the corresponding category[edit]

At some point over the past few years, I saw an article for a city that had a list of notables and at the top of the the list was a see also to the corresponding category for notables from that place, and I started implementing that practice in hundreds of articles. For example, the Notable people section in the article for Dumont, New Jersey has a see also link at the top of the section to Category:People from Dumont, New Jersey, and there are hundreds of other articles for places in New Jersey and the surrounding area that implement this as well. This practice serves several purposes: 1) In the exact spirit of WP:CLS, it allows the embedded list to be updated from the corresponding category and to have the category updated from the embedded list in synergistic fashion when one gets out of synch with the other, allowing links and entries to be updated from each other. 2) It serves as a marker to remind those adding notables to the embedded list to remember to add the entry to the corresponding category. 3) It allows the category to be readily carried over when the embedded list is turned into a standalone article. 4) And it provides a gateway to allow readers to use the category system to navigate across other categories for notables from the same area. I have seen this method used elsewhere, but there are editors who have raised an issue with this technique. Does this practice contravene policy? Is there any issue with doing this in articles? Alansohn (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You raise some good arguments for doing it, though I can't say I've encountered the issue before so maybe I'm just not yet aware of counterarguments. Have you notified the other editor who disagrees with you of this thread, and/or posted a link here from wherever you were previously debating this? postdlf (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I am the other editor involved, and I have edited hundreds--perhaps thousands--of articles about US cities. The only place I have seen a category placed into a "notable people" section is in New Jersey, and the only editor I have seen do this is Alansohn. In fact, he has created all the categories being linked to. There has been discussion about this here and here, and I left a detailed edit summary here. Alansohn also explained his rationale on my talk page here. My overriding concern is whether this practice will allow readers "to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles", per WP:BUILD. In this case, will adding a link to a category entitled "People from Foo, New Jersey" enable readers who are looking at the notable people section of the Foo, New Jersey article--actually learn more about notable people from that city. My answer is...maybe. In order to be in the category "People from Foo, New Jersey", all an editor has to do is add that category to a biography. In my experience, categories are added with little precision to biographies. Said another way, not everyone in the category may in fact have a connection to Foo. For this reason, many editors insist that names added to a notable people list within an article be accompanied by a reliable source. If the notable people list gets too long, as often happens with large cities, a separate list of notable people can be created (with sources for each addition). Again, this is helpful for readers because there is some assurance of accuracy, since any editor patrolling either the notable people section of the city article (an "embedded list") or the "List of people from Foo" article (a "stand-alone list") can scrutinize new names that are added to be sure they have a reliable source. This practice is suggested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people. This is the least we as editors can do for readers of an article who wish to find out more about the notable people from that city: offer them some assurance of reliability. Indeed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline even suggests a criteria for inclusion on a list of notable people: that they should only be "famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city." A category, on the other hand, which may get added to a biography in good faith by an editor not familiar with these strict criteria, is bound to be less accurate. The category "People from Foo, New Jersey" is definitely a valuable resource for those wishing to discover new names to add to the list of notable people, but so is Google, or the "what links here" button. Alansohn may not have the same degree of respect for reliable sources as I do, but his insistence that all of New Jersey be edited his way is disruptive. I have tried to address that here under the title "New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion not unlike the US County template proposal a year + ago in which this issue was mentioned. The bottom line is simple, YES or NO, did the notable person discussed, from ANYWHERE reside in, contribute to, remain there or compose or create something there that required LIVING THERE??? If NO, then they are NOT NOTABLE to the specific place. IF the Beatles stopped at a restaurant in Burnt Corn, Alabama, did they reside there? NO. How about if Ringo enjoyed the local BBQ and stayed there for 3 days, did he reside there? NO. Its overkill and confusing to make the same person NOTABLE for a city, a state, a category etc etc etc. The person is notable, NOT where they resided. ALL of thois does nothing more than implicitly makea location notable and not the actual person.......UselessCoal town guy (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Face palm. I asked User:Magnolia677 to state his case in neutral fashion. Beyond that failure, he goes off to blatantly WP:CANVASS User:Coal town guy (see here) who promptly shows up and shares his rambling nonsense. I was hoping to get some independent input from anyone out there. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link. The complaint about the wrong articles being placed in categories is 1) not relevant here on the issue of where a category link should be placed, and 2) fixable by editing the improperly categorized articles. I also have no idea what Coal town guy is talking about, but whatever it is it doesn't seem relevant here. postdlf (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Postdlf, you just watched an editor denounce another editor's input as "rambling nonsense". This same editor yesterday left an edit summary stating "Rv preposterous BS excuse to remove category, as no category can be verified; Time to cut the crap and learn to work collaboratively." You're an administrator. Didn't you feel some obligation to comment on this incivility? Shame on you. Your comments are worthless to me. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am too old for this...perpetual disappointment is a choice not an obligationCoal town guy (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that categories are fairly sloppily maintained. Horribly maintained in some cases. Otherwise great editors who maintain content with great precision ignore the categories. Can't easily double check a category. Nor can one insert a citation per WP:NLIST or WP:LISTPEOPLE as required. At least, not easily. It is a way of circumventing those requirements IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add See also[edit]

In a discussion on deletion of a category, somebody suggested replacing it with See also in the individual articles. The advantage that I can think of is a small footprint for small classifications. The disadvantage that I can think of is that we don't know the classification going to stay small and it may not be maintained consistently across pages in the classification. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if guidelines for See also exist elsewhere, it would be useful here to distinguish when to use it in place of a category or list.Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that a WP:See also section should never be used in lieu of a category or standalone list. In practice, I suppose, that might be implemented under a bold heading or in a second column within section See also, in order to distinguish the pages on like objects from regular See also pages.
What are some example categories or lists whose replacement in See also sections seems appropriate to you, or its suggestion has been decisive in favor of category or list deletion? --P64 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines#outline sections (not articles). Fgnievinski (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Images in navigational box titles[edit]

please comment in this thread. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Parents, children, and a dubious category addition[edit]

I'd like to restart the discussion above, "Embedded list of notables with a see also to the corresponding category", which became acrimonious and did not lead to consensus.

On many articles about cities and towns in New Jersey, the category "People from...", has been added as a hatnote. An example can be seen at Salem, New Jersey.

The specific hatnote used is {{See also|Category:People from Salem, New Jersey}}.

My first concern about using this category/hatnote is that template:See also doesn't list this as an example of how to use the "see also" template. There's an explanation of how to use this template to link to a category using a colon trick, but the examples on the colon trick help page don't seem relevant to how it is being used on the New Jersey articles.

To me, this seems nothing more than a fancy category addition. For that reason, I feel it should follow the rules for categories. Specifically, WP:CATDEF, which states that "category declarations are placed at the end of the wikitext, but before any stub templates". On New Jersey articles, the category has been added to the text body.

As well, this category is redundant on most articles it is included on, because its parent category is included on the same article. For example, Category:Salem, New Jersey includes the child Category:People from Salem, New Jersey. Listing both the parent and child is redundant, and WP:SUBCAT addresses this by stating "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category".

This concern was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Removal of a redundant category, but generated no discussion. It was also posted at Talk:North Bergen, New Jersey#RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article?, but generated only one short response (excluding the comments from the editor who posted the category). Before I continue removing the "people from" category, I'd appreciate the input of other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • To respond to the issues raised here:
  • In summary, this is not a "fancy category addition", nor is it particularly fancy; No category is added. There are no parents, no children and no category addition, dubious or otherwise. As no category is being added, WP:CATDEF's dictate to put the definition has no relevance here. As no category is being defined, WP:SUBCAT is also irrelevant; having a see also link to Category:People from Salem, New Jersey doesn't conflict with the Category:Salem, New Jersey defined at the bottom of the article. I'm not sure what Magnolia677 is trying to accomplish, but I am extremely dubious that there is any good faith purpose here. A definitive response here may get him to end the persistent harassment and edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with what Alansohn has written above. He covered the issue well, and special attention should be paid by Magnolia677 to his #2, which I think is where the heart of some confusion may lie. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was skeptical of the new way of including a category when I first came across it for alumni of Universities, now I add it regularly. It is very clever, especially when the alternative is to create a parent category just to contain a single category below it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate navbox subjects[edit]

Today I came across Template:Organ transplantation in fiction. It seems I may not know the outer bounds of what is appropriate for a navbox template. It's not about the subject but rather a bunch of example fictional works which happen to deal with organ transplantation. Does the fact that we have an article organ transplantation in fiction justify it? By the same logic would Solar System in fiction or Svalbard in fiction qualify for a navbox which collected fictional works dealing with the Solar system or Svalbard?

It seems like an "in fiction" section is a viable link or section of broader subjects' navboxes. For example time travel in fiction is both a link and a group in Template:Time travel, which makes perfect sense to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is to make a template, add it to a few articles, see if anyone takes it to TFD. Keep in mind this guideline as well as the handful of essays linked to it. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)