Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
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.
 
Archive
Archives
  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

Question regarding categories[edit]

Discussion is moved from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Question_regarding_categories

82.8.252.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) tried to create Category:Western (genre) television actors with this edit. They then began adding it to several articles. Since some (though not all) did not meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles where it states A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession. I then noticed that it was also a red cat and began removing more of the edits. At that point an SPA made this edit and the red cats turned blue. Since then the cat has been restored to numerous articles where IMO it does not belong. I came here to get input on whether these edits violate the guidelines for categories on the articles where there is no sourcing or when the genre is not a defining characteristic for the person. Also, if this question belongs on a different page please let me know and I will move it there. MarnetteD|Talk 17:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

MD is ignoring "Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article." How is Category: Soap opera actors any more important than this category? The Estern genre was massive, there were hundreds of series', thousands of actors (regular cast members) and they spanned several decades. IMO the editor has been abusing policy by demanding "reliable sources" when virtually every series and actor in question is linked to IMDB (which has not been classed "reliable" not "unreliable" but in many cases in the best we have as books on these series are not going to be easy accessible or affordable. In short: a category verifiable via IMDB is better than no category at all, and men actors have been involved in many genres what exactly is "defining"? Indexing isn't about POV as much as about making articles accessible to readers, as it creates a list through which they can reach a list of names of the many actors in a genre, whether it be soaps, westerns some music genre or other. Fussing over petty trivialities as MD is is missing the point as to why we're building this encyc. and adding unnecessary disputes. His/her reverts were poorly managed, POV-based and lack, not only good faith, but an understanding of who categories are for. Not us editors, but the millions of readers who we never see: indexing for accessibility not just POV notability. But Westerns are a notable genre, all these series are created, the actors names are present in them so they are notable for that fact already. Just as lesser-actors are "notable" for appearing in soaps where there is far less recognition for them. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
None of this displays any understanding of the basic posiciy regarding cats as italicized on your talk page and above. There needs to be reliably sourced info showing that the genre is a defining characteristic of the person whose article the cat is added to. MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
And once agin you ignore the question: what is the "defining" characteristic of an actor who has had roles in several genres, when the Western genre is in itself a defining genre with a huge array of articles? Also, could you show me any editor who reads and verifies an entire article before categorising it just to be sure it meets your persona expectations? I see editors bulk-adding dozens of articles per seconds with HotCat and AWB, many are stubs 3-5 lines long with no sources at all. Do you revert and harass them also, for their good faith contributions to wikipedia? Do you abuse policy and choose to remove dozens of cats as "red cat" rather than simple add a TOC to the cat in question to confirm it? There is good faith and there is side-stepping policy to your own advantage, and it is clear for all to see that you choose the war-path instead of the honest alternative. Oh, but "you don't work for me" you say. I wasn't aware anyone did... WP:VOLUNTEER. If I don't work for you either, I suggest you tone down your critical opinions, you would have got further without mis-representing policy and making false accusations towards me in a WP:BITE-like fashion. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I would propose to move this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion (and close it here) and put a request for comment at the end for it to see what others have to say about it. If response is to low after 4 days days move the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories and try again. Cheers Mion (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea Mion. The reason I didn't go to CFD first is that I wasn't proposing that the category be deleted. I know that page is titled "Categories for Discussion" but the discussions are about deletion, renaming or merging and I was not proposing any of these. Please feel free to move this to wherever you see fit. MarnetteD|Talk 18:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems the newly created category is a doublure as many of the actors also appear in Category:Western (genre) film actresses and Category:Male Western (genre) film actors (maybe i'm wrong in this), the newly created cat lacks the category nesting at the bottom of the page, 'ill move the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion for more input. Mion (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we need (genre) + (format) + (actors) - soap operas are unique in that they only appear on television. Perhaps move both to Western (genre) actors, regardless of film or television? That would simplify things somewhat. In any case, CFD is the right place, even if there isn't a proposal to merge or delete or rename, it could be used also just to clarify inclusion criteria.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes there are a lot of Western actors who appeared in both television series and films, such as Clint Eastwood, William Boyd, and so forth, but there are also many who did not, such as John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and so on. I'm not sure it would be right to mix several thousand purely film actors in with television actors who never made any films as it would make make those categorise twice as big as they should be instead of sub-categorised into respective (and still large) media formats. I think someone split Western actors into male/female because it was vast, so to bulk those out with TV actors might be an injustice to the point of sub-categorising and making names easier to identify. I also think it ignorant of MD to ignore that a lot of actors are categorised for being in Western films when they only made one or two, yet he doesn't think an actor being in an entire series and every episode of one notable series qualifies as "defining". For example: John Wayne's appearances in Westerns were defining of his film career, but was, say, Steve McQueen's who appeared in only four Westerns of his 40+ credits, because he's in Category:Male Western (genre) film actors. It's subjective and highly POV to place a minimum number of appearances before deciding a category applies, in such a way, though obviously cameos are not worth considering, yet this is what MD has done, he has personally decided that "one or two don't cut it". Foolishly even removing Eric Fleming from the new category without a clue that this was his defining role, not just in Western TV, but in his entire acting career. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If anyone wants to take this to CFD that is okay. I started this post in an attempt to get other editors to point out to the IP that they have added to the category to numerous articles in violation of the policy regarding adding categories to article. To repeat A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession. This category is now in numerous articles where this has not been followed. MarnetteD|Talk 19:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Psychiatric instruments[edit]

Category:Psychiatric instruments contains many subcategories with colons. Note that there's no psychiatric instrument article yet, and I'm not a psychiatrist, but online search suggests that a psychiatric instrument is a type of assessment tool used in psychiatry, and all of the contained articles in the subcategories are indeed on the assessment tools rather than about the respective disorders. I can't find anything in policy about the use of colons in category names, but I wonder whether there's a better way to name them. Perhaps if they were renamed along the lines of Category:Psychiatric instruments: anxiety becoming Category:Psychiatric instruments for anxiety, etc. I thought I should get feedback from other editors before taking this to CFD. Thanks, Categlory (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing categories[edit]

Is "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision," supposed to apply to regular editing behavior? IE, choosing to remove the category by editors, or is it supposed to apply to bulk removal? Hipocrite (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It applies when categories are being discussed for deletion/renaming/etc. The point is, it is hard for the community to see the intended scope of the category if people are voiding it. This is a typical technique used to weaken a category before deletion, to try to blast away most of the contents, and is usually frowned upon. non-controversial removals are fine (e.g. something that clearly doesn't fit), but if you're reverted, you should just wait until after the discussion on the cat finishes. FWIW, this question is based on the discussion currently going on about the possible deletion of Category:Violence against men and subcats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of template cfd-speedy[edit]

Category:Classical composers by nationality has been moved to its current name recently. It's still in Category:Categories for speedy renaming though, so it looks like there's a proposal to rename it to itself. I guess someone forgot the cfd template there. Could I just remove it?

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is what happens when you allow everyone to move a category. If you want to remove the tag, all of the cleanup should be done first. Or rename it back and renominate so that the move would be done normally. No idea which is best. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)