Wikipedia talk:Categorization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 
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.
 

Simplify and refine naming of category classes[edit]

Currently, WP:PROJCATS divides categories into two main types: "Administrative categories" and "Content categories". The former is also subdivided into "stub categories", "maintenance categories", and several others without explicit names given.

The name "Administrative categories" is problematic. It makes it sound like it is something that only concerns Wikipedia:Administrators. This misconception is reinforced by the Template:Tracking category commonly being followed by Template:Polluted category as at Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters.

Perhaps it is a better idea to divide categories into "Maintenance categories" and "Content categories". Then "Maintenance categories" can be subdivided into "stub categories", Wikiproject categories, and so on. Those seem like maintenance categories to me so the semantics is fine under this re-naming. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree with the general idea that "Administrative categories" is not a good descriptor for categories that are "intended for use by editors". As Jason Quinn points out, "Administrative categories" sounds like something that should only be touched by Wikipedia:Administrators. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've dug into the page history to figure out how we ended up with the present (rather myopic) naming scheme. I learned that originally there was just a distinction of a "maintenance" category from the rest (see this for instance). Things started to change with a massive reworking of Wikipedia:Categorization with this edit (11:13, 26 February 2009 by User:Kotniski) which according to the edit summary was done because nobody replied (after just two days) to their "REWRITE" proposal. Among many changes, this rewrite divided categories into "project" and "content" categories. Later, this edit (03:05, 14 April 2011 by User:Mclay1) renamed the "project" categories to "administrative" categories (without any discussion as far as I can tell). Things fluctuated here and there but for the most part these are the two seminal changes that led to the current scheme.

I've been mulling over this topic for a while but I think the original idea (and my idea posted above) where they are named "maintenance" is still the best. I've tried to get more people to comment here but apparently not many people care. When I feel I've thought this out well enough, I will go ahead and start making some changes. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • agree with not using name "Administrative categories". Project categories is also a bit misleading. Maintenance categories sounds OK, except that it is already a subcat anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Category moves still messed up[edit]

Two problems have come up that are causing problems with category redirects:

  • A minor one is the move software isn't creating the redirect in the optimum form. It's producing {{Category redirect|Category:CATEGORYNAME}} instead of {{Category redirect|CATEGORYNAME}} which takes longer to clear in the cache and can leave false positives at Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories.
  • The major one is the tendency for users to arbitarily move a heavily populated category and do nothing about the articles. The redirect bot won't process a populated new category for a week so they just sit there. Then when there are a lot to do the bot is crashing with the epic work - see User:RussBot/category redirect log. A cap has had to be set on this because it was never intended to be a substitute for CFD or to monopolise the bot for days on end. There's recently been a batch of moves covering some 10,000 articles on footballers - see Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories for some of the leftovers.

What's the best way forward to deal with these sorts of messes when they arise? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: It shouldn't take any longer to handle {{Category redirect|Category:CATEGORYNAME}} than it does for {{Category redirect|CATEGORYNAME}}. Why do you think it does? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Just about all the empty ones that are hanging around in the category that I've checked are in the former format and the product of moves. I suspect the reverse situation is applying and some aren't showing up so fast. It seems to be a cache matter and using the latter setting would avoid it. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see where the confusion is. It indeed isn't taking any longer to purge, but since users can move categories now, a lot more categories are ending up in there, and even though they're still moving just as fast, you're noticing them now because of the larger volume. Using the latter setting wouldn't help at all. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Categorising lists of red links[edit]

Do we have a category for pages with lists of redlinks, like List of ICD-9 codes 630–679: complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium? If not, I think we should create one - hidden, if necessary. Ditto for links in non-article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What would be the purpose of such a category? DexDor (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
To make it easier for people looking for something to wrote about - especially by querying intersections of such categories with those by project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I was about to say this sounds more like a use case for a database report than a category, but Andy's suggestion sounds very useful. One could think of a bot keeping the category tags up to date (limited to article space I'd think). That said, an external tool generating such a list from a database replica, and collaborating with existing tools that produce per-project maintenance lists would be another option. — HHHIPPO 20:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced this would be useful - when editors create lists ("List of villages in <some part of India>", "List of people who have won <some minor award>" etc) some link every entry (creating a sea of red - and links to dab pages) and some don't. There are lots of stubs that could be expanded and (especially for wp newbies) that's probably a better way to find places to add content. DexDor (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Applying categories when information is in a "sub-article"?[edit]

Is there a consensus as to how things should be handled when, for instance, Ian McKellen has received numerous awards for which there are categories, but the awards he's received are discussed at Ian McKellen, roles and awards? I can think of a few ways this might be handled but am not sure what the prevailing viewpoint is (or if there is one):

  1. The categories should be placed on the main article if and only if the main article discusses the awards, the existence of the sub-article notwithstanding.
  2. The categories should be placed on the sub-article with the standard caveat that they must be verified.
  3. The existence of the sub-article is sufficient for categorizing the main article, provided the categories are verified at the sub-article.

Among other things, I'm concerned about issues with WP:CIRCULAR, and I don't personally think readers should have to look at article B to confirm that categories applied to article A are appropriate.

Thanks for your input! DonIago (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Choice 1 seems foolish; if it is confirmed that Sir Ian has won a certain award, there is no reason to omit the category simply because it appears on another page. Choice 2, in this case, would result in lots of "List of" articles being placed in categories intended for people; other cases would result in similar mis-categorizations. Choice 3 therefore seems best. The existence of the sub-page ought to provide ample documentation for the categories. If there is a sourcing dispute, participants should have minimal trouble finding the sub-page and the sourcing info there. I don't think it would cause a WP:CIRCULAR issue because this is not a case of an article citing another article; it is simply adding an extra click to spot the citation for one relatively minor part of the article (the categories in question). Fishal (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Fishal. If the category is for people (e.g., "Category:Tony Award winners" or "Category:Back Stage West Garland Award recipients"), put it on the person's page. The subpage is a list (not a winner or a recipient) so only a category like "Category:Lists of awards by actor" is appropriate. Let the name of the category guide you. If many of the awards are only discussed on the subpage, you could put a note in the main page's source that says to check the subpage for the citations. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input. I don't quite agree, but that's alright. DonIago (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Category maxes out at 7 entries[edit]

I just created Category:Authors and writers external links templates and populated it. With for example {{Gutenberg author}}. However Gutenberg author and many others are not showing up, staying in the parent cat of Category:People and person external link templates. It seems to have maxed out at 7 entries. I notice the other sub-cat to Category:People and person external link templates, Category:Canada politics and government external link templates, is also maxed out at 7 entries (though maybe its natural number, just suspiciously the same). Is 7 a bug, or feature? -- GreenC 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Template updates cause an low priority task to start that updates the category later. So it is not instant and in the past has taken weeks. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You edited the template documentation subpages like in [1]. That is the correct action but it's affected by the delay described by Vegaswikian. If you null edit the actual template pages then the category should update right away, but there is no need to use null edits for a minor issue like this. Just wait for it to eventually happen automatically. I realize it seems odd that the category is sometimes displayed at the bottom of the pages, but the pages are not displayed in the categories. However, the page and the category can be updated at different times when the categorization is done via a transcluded page. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the explanation (and Vegaswikian). Regards. -- GreenC 18:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)