Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Categories
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.
  1. c. July–December 2004
  2. c. December 2004 – May 2005
  3. c. May–September 2005
  4. c. October–December 2005
  5. January – 4 April 2006
  6. April–June 2006
  7. June–August 2006
  8. August 2006 – January 2007
  9. 2007
  10. 2008
  11. 2009
  12. 2010
  13. 2011
  14. 2012
  15. 2013
  16. 2014

Dutch cricketers[edit]

At Category:Dutch cricketers, there is no description and the hatnote says "Classification: People: By occupation: Sportspeople: Cricketers: By nationality: Dutch". When placed on the page of a player, this means to me that the player is of Dutch nationality. Unfortunately, it has also been used on players that simply play for the Dutch national team, and were born elsewhere.

For other countries, this distinction is clearly made. For example, Category:Australian cricketers is for any player that plays for the Australian team, while Category:Cricketers from Australia is for cricketers of Australian nationality, regardless of the team for which they play. Prose is present at the top of each category page, clarifying this.

Shouldn't we add a Category:Cricketers from the Netherlands, change the hatnote on Category:Dutch cricketers to clarify that it's for anyone that plays for the Netherlands team, and add it to the relevant players? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We should probably do this... my only hesitation is whether the two categories would be overly duplicative. Could you give us a rough idea of how many players would appear in one category and not in the other? Are there many notable Dutchmen who play for teams other than the Netherlands team? Are their any non-Dutchmen who play on the Netherlands cricket team? Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
For a (still messy) precedent, see how Footballers are categorised in Category:Association footballers by country. Although the structure is not yet consistent, see for example Category:footballers in England which currently contains Category:English footballers and Category:Footballers who have played in England. I'm not sure the latter is needed as well as its sub-cat Category:Expatriate footballers in England. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Close own proposals as non-admin?[edit]

Is it allowed to close own proposals, before admin does it? Because I as proposer was myself convinced that the proposal is not good and at the same time god an idea for a better solution. Admin thinkgs I still want discussion in proposal but I want to archive it and open better proposal with better, different idea. CN1 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If nobody else has commented, or all the comments are opposed to your proposal, then you may withdraw it, and (if you wish & know how) do a non-admin closure it as "Withdrawn". However, once anybody else has expressed support or made alternative proposals, you must let the discussion run. (For reference: 1, 2)
Note that you can make your own alternative proposals in the discussion that is open. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
CN1, I have now closed the first one as Rename, to your third proposed name. In future, if you change your mind during a discussion, please don't remove your previous proposals that people had commented on, but use <s> </s> tags to strike them out instead. Otherwise it is hard for the person doing the close to understand what people were responding to. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically[edit]

As someone who has been doing this manually for years, I hereby dutifully beg of anyone who is technically proficient and knows how to create and run a bot that will:

  1. Automatically sort all Categories on each article and category page alphabetically;
  2. Create a uniform system for where to place categories on each article and category page that commence with numbers, such as years of birth/death, centuries, and any category that starts with a number/numeral.

Please see the centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 61#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion re-opened at VPP[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech help required to improve categories[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#CatVisor and User:Paradoctor/CatVisor#Planned features if you are willing and able to assist this innovative WP project move along it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Category moved out of process[edit]

One category that I had proposed for speedy renaming has been moved manually to the proposed target by another user. He probably saw the message, and decided to "just do it" himself. Some subcategories and articles have been re-categorized, but not all. I have placed a "warning" immediately below the moved category on WP:CFD/Speedy, and have posted a message to the user.

Maybe the stop sign – "Do not use the "Move" tab" – immediately preceding the "Current nominations" heading could be included in the CFD message on proposed categories. The user who moved it probably never followed the link to the speedy page, and thus saw the stop sign.

Is there a way to remove the "Move" tab on categories that have the CFD message?

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Notifying @Armbrust: and @Fayenatic london:. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The move tab for all users has never received a consensus to have it from the community. The foundation placed it there ignoring all existing policies, guidelines and protests. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed (with VW); you can read our discussion about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Category pages will be movable soon. What you suggest is probably not something we can expect to happen. It would be more viable to campaign for stronger warnings on the page that comes up when moving a category. This ought to be something that could be edited by admins for each wiki.
Feel free to revert a move if you spot any more that have been done out of process. As a non-admin, I assume you will be able to do so, providing the old page has not been edited after it became a redirect. – Fayenatic London 20:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Allright, I'll try to revert the move. I guess the re-categorized article and subcat stay where they are. Less job for the bot. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It didn't work. The software said that "it appears that the revert has already been undone", or something similar. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I also tried to move the category back to the old name, but that didn't work either, despite the fact that the (soft) redirect has not been edited after the move. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
What categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau (now a soft redirect) was moved to Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield–Cape Girardeau. (The difference is an endash instead of a hyphen.)
HandsomeFella (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
For that one, the bot should clean up when it gets listed in a little bit. So while wrong, it probably is not something that needs to be undone a this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a recurring problem. I saw that Fayenatic just pinged another user for the same reason. What about my suggestion to include the stop sign in the message displayed by Template:Cfr-speedy full? HandsomeFella (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess we could do something like that. Do you have the full proposed wording? Or use what you suggested above? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
HF means the warning here. I've adapted this slightly and added it into this new version of the template.
Thanks for the suggestion, HandsomeFella. (I misunderstood earlier and thought you were suggesting that a warning should be displayed by the MediaWiki software when doing the MovePage function, e.g. Special:MovePage/Sandbox.) – Fayenatic London 21:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I did a minor wording tweak also. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Great! That's perfect. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete needed[edit]

Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau (now a soft redirect), previously moved out of process (see above), needs to be deleted. I know you work hard, so this is just a friendly reminder. Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CATRED encourages us to leave soft redirects to names with special characters, from forms that can by typed with standard keyboard characters. This applies especially with redirects from hyphens to dashes, but also with redirects from plain letters to diacritics. If you use WP:HotCat, you'll find it automatically substitutes the target category if you give it the redirected one, which can be jolly useful. So, I intentionally retained that redirect page. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Category moves[edit]

Now that category pages (but still not their contents) can be moved using the 'Move' tool, I would like to inquire whether a consensus was reached on actually implementing this practice at WP:CFD/W or continuing the previous practice of Cydebot creating a new category (with attribution) and deleting the old category. The only relevant thread I can find is the highly convoluted one here, but even that discussion was concerned more with restricting or not restricting this new ability rather than whether or not it should be used following category discussions. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If, through discussion at WP:CFD, there is consensus to rename a category, I see no reason why the normal "move" process should not be used on the category page. Sure, moving the cat page does not recategorise the pages - but nor does the existing copypaste method. Cydebot can still be used to recategorise the individual pages; perhaps it can move the cat page too. After all, it moves the category talk page quite happily. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There's been some discussion about this at User talk:Cyde#Categories can be moved - please stop copy&pasting them. I'm in strong support of modifying Cydebot to take advantage of the category move feature. Having the full category history available should make it much easier to understand a category's past. - Eureka Lott 16:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)