Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:59, 9 July 2021

Shortcut

WT:CATP

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Categories page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 120 days

XX people of YY descent

Any general guidance on who belongs in the type of category which lists "XX people of YY descent", such as for example, these:

and when to use them? The use case here is Augusto Pinochet, which includes all three categories but says only this about origins:

He was the son and namesake of Augusto Pinochet Vera (1891–1944), a descendant of an 18th-century French Breton immigrant from Lamballe,^[30] and Avelina Ugarte Martínez (1895–1986), a woman whose family had been in Chile since the 17th century.^[31]^[32]

Is an immigrant from the 1700s enough to include Pinochet in the Breton category? What determines if someone is "of YY descent"; do we go back centuries? And what about the fact that both "Breton" and "French" are included, is this an ethnicity/geographic area distinction, so they are both allowed? Otherwise, Brittany is located in France, so maybe only the more specific one should be included?

But besides the specific Pinochet case, I'm interested in what the general guidelines are for specifying a "descent" category; someone born in, say, 1950, with one immigrant ancestor from 1700, is between 8 and 10 generations removed, so possibly only 1/1000 th of the blood of their ancestor. Or is some other factor at play? Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there are no general guidelines. They are frequently created and frequently nominated for deletion with varying results.--User:Namiba 21:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious consideration is whether in the article its suggested that the descent is significant in some way which affects the notability of the person - which it usually isnt. Rathfelder (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: according to WP:COPHERITAGE we only categorize by the parents' nationalities or ethnicities and not any further back in time. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all; this is helpful. Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior affiliations

I have a question regarding a few categories such as Category:Politicians from Cluj-Napoca. The city of Cluj-Napoca has been part of Romania for the past century, but belonged to Austria-Hungary before that.

Some of the people in this category were born in Romania and participated in politics in Romania. Others were born in Austria-Hungary, served as politicians in Hungary and never knew the city would one day join Romania.

Anyway, my question pertains to a user who keeps adding Category:Hungarian politicians. I understand the logic, but I also seem to recall that such situations demand only the present nationality of a place, and cannot account for all past border changes. It’d be like placing Category:Politicians from Galway (city) under Category:British politicians, or Category:Politicians from Kyiv under Category:Soviet politicians.

What do others think? Is this spelled out by any policy? @Rathfelder: @Oculi: @Marcocapelle: — Biruitorul ^Talk 15:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Biruitorul: there is no policy that I know of but parenting the entire Cluj-Napoca category into a Hungarian tree does not make sense. The individual articles of the category may well be added to a Hungarian politicians category if applicable, but not the category as a whole. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its very messy. Does language help? Would people in Cluj have spoken Romanian? Described themselves as Romanian? Category:Austro-Hungarian politicians are not the same as Hungarian politicians. Could the category be divided? Rathfelder (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Hungarians from Cluj did not normally speak Romanian before World War I, and saw themselves as Hungarian or, perhaps, Transylvanian. Is there precedent for a split for other cities that have changed hands? — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I havent seen cities split often, but I can see why you cant have Austro-Hungarian politicians from Klausenburg and Romanian politicians from Cluj. Have a look at Kaliningrad, which has Category:People from Kaliningrad and Category:People from Königsberg. Rathfelder (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but that’s a special case of a city that was entirely destroyed and replaced by not only a new state but also a new people. Much more continuity in Transylvania. The few Romanians who lived in places like Cluj, Oradea and Târgu Mureș tended to be members of the elite, some of whom participated in politics both before and after 1918. Emil Isac, for example. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So they could be in Category:Politicians from Cluj-Napoca and also in Category:Austro-Hungarian politicians or Romanian politicians. Rathfelder (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, yes. But what about someone like András Bethlen, a Hungarian who died in 1898? We could create a category tree for Austro-Hungarian politicians by city (dozens of cities in Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Italy, Poland, Ukraine), distinct from the modern cities.
    - Or we could, as Marcocapelle suggested above, simplify matters and categorize only by present country, making clear that Bethlen was never a Romanian politician through his inclusion in Category:Agriculture ministers of Hungary and Category:Members of the House of Representatives (Hungary). — Biruitorul ^Talk 00:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is probably no need indeed to create categories for politicians by city everywhere (or for other occupations). In many cases, people are from a city (i.e. they grew up there) but had a political career elsewhere, and categorizing them in a politicians category for either city is trouble. Place Clichy (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make sense to place all politicians from Cluj-Napoca in Category:Hungarian politicians by default. It does make sense however to place them in a Romanian politicians category, because whatever the era they lived in, people from Cluj-Napoca (or its former incarnations of Kolozsvár/Klausenburg) belong to the history of the extant state of Romania. Also note that technically Cluj has been in Romania for 103 years (starting in 1918), more than twice the time it belonged to Austria-Hungary (1867-1918), although it was part of Hungary before that, among other masters in its rich history (the Ottoman Empire, Transylvania, Roman Dacia, the Austrian Empire etc.). To solve the issue at hand, people from Cluj that were active in a former Hungarian state may be placed individually in an appropriate category such as Category:People from the Kingdom of Hungary or Category:Austro-Hungarian politicians. Place Clichy (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to add my point of view on this, whether the current state is added to the categories of the politicians-from-x categories is probably best decided on a case by case basis. I would have problems with people like Giuseppe Garibaldi, an individual born in Nice who supported the unification of Nice with Italy, being included in the category "Politicians from Nice" and then being linked to "French Politicians", for example. Former states, however, should definitely not be linked to the "politicians from x" articles. It leads to all kinds of absurdities. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I came to know this discussion exist, but @Biruitorul: accused of acting contrary consensus, despite the discussion started not long ago and not even closed...nice and fine...Zoltán Illés, and Kinga Gál are not past century, but present-day politicians, e.g. similar instances may be elsewhere, I have to add, that was my point.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
- But it’s an absurd point. See for example List of foreign-born United States politicians. US Senators Michael Bennet, Ted Cruz, Tammy Duckworth, Mazie Hirono and Chris Van Hollen were born, respectively, in New Delhi, Calgary, Bangkok, Koori and Karachi. Shall we add Category:American politicians to Category:Politicians from Karachi because of Van Hollen? Stop wasting everyone’s time. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Biruitorul, I could not waste anyone's time, if you did not inform me about this discussion, neither you joined the one I opened. Or, the original initiator would do it months before. So please stop blaming me. You also expressed above "I understand the logic", so definitely it would have been necessary to have discussion about it, whether or not my point you judge absurd now, first I have to follow up the discussion here, I just shortly summarized my initial point, so on the content issues I may react a bit later.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Having conpletely reviewed the discussion I agree mostly with @Place Clichy:'s outline, though not necesarily on the whole - althouth that date is correcly 1920, the Ottoman Empire did not held the city, etc. and despite it belongs over a century to Romania, have been part of Hungarian states/Lands of the Hungarian Crown for 920 years -, if we have a category for politicans from a city, then it should not be attached to any nationality, hence as well the category of Romanian/Serbian/Slovak etc. politicians should be removed from there, and individual tagging by other categories could present national affiliation, shall be in any time period. This would solve the confusion, since my examples also show, people with different (or later acquired nationality) could born in that city.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

People from... is ambiguous, as it does not explicitly or only refer to people born in a city. If someone is born in a city but has no defining link to it, I believe that the current consensus is not to add them to the category for people from this city. Garibaldi was involved in French politics too actually. Of course a category for Politicians from Foo City should be added to the nearest national category for the country where Foo City is located, there is a defining link between a city and the country it is in. In most cases the best solution is not to create many intersection categories for politicians by city, or for other occupations, unless there is a very strong and specific reason for this intersection. Place Clichy (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the creation of categories like Category:Romanian politicians from Cluj-Napoca and Category:Hungarian politicians from Cluj-Napoca. Btw, the same issue exists at Category:Musicians from Cluj-Napoca. 77wonders (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that even thinner intersections of city plus occupation plus ethnicity and/or historical era are a solution to this issue. In fact, placing someone in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People from Cluj-Napoca and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hungarian politicians is really sufficient if both categories are applicable. Plus this whole Romanian vs. Hungarian thing is really ambiguous: would we have to understand such a category name as applying to people from the Hungarian national minority, or people linked to the city at a time when it was part of Hungary regardless of their national identification? Place Clichy (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Hello! I am new here and so expect that this is likely *not* a new discussion, but I couldn't easily find where the existing discussion thread was.

I am participating in the UBC Honouring Indigenous Writers Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon and noticing that there are significant gaps in categories for writing about Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Of course, there are hundreds of Indigenous Nations within Canada, each with their own specific names (and often variant spellings). At minimum, though, it would be fantastic to have categories for the commonly used collective terms "Indigenous Peoples in Canada," "Métis,"and "Inuit." The category "First Nations" already exists and is used in conjunction with a number of other kinds of category descriptors (such as First Nations writer). However, this is inconsistent. For example, there is no category for First Nations author or literary critic.

Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliawrites (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliawrites: The main category is at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Indigenous peoples in Canada, which seems to have lots of content. If you have specific suggestions on how to improve the way things are organized there, you may either start the changes yourself (see WP:Be bold) or suggest in this discussions what to improve. For instance, if you see some inconsistency or mistakes on how the terms Indigenous peoples and First Nations are used, you are welcome to report it, or fix it.

However the categorization of articles can sometimes be tricky. I would suggest to consider 2 frequent issues for which editing guidelines are helpful:

Per guideline WP:SEPARATE, categories for individual people (i.e. biographical articles) should be kept separate from topic categories. They can often be a sub-category of the topic category though. This can be tricky when the name of the main topic includes the word people(s). For instance, among ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:First Nations, all biographical articles should be somewhere in child ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:First Nations people, and this category and its children should only have biographical articles in them.
Per guideline WP:OCEGRS about non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, not every category of people by occupation should be balanced by equivalent categories for every ethnic identification in the world. When these intersections are notable in their own right, which is undoubtedly the case for Fist Nations writers, then the category may be created. However, I am far from sure that literary critics stemming from First Nations are recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.

Feel free to ask any question in this discussion, or start editing. Place Clichy (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naming inconsistency for alumni/faculty/people

There is some inconsistency with how lists and categories are named for alumni/faculty/people associated to educational institutions. See this discussion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remember going through this discussion before, but not where or when - perhaps someone here can provide a link to prior discussion? The "lists" project page is not really the best place for a discussion of category names, especially one which has been gone over thoroughly not too long ago (as far as I can remember!) PamD 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of mammals by location

I'm relatively inexperienced with categories. Looking at Category:Lists of mammals, there are a number of lists about specific locations. For example List of mammals of Newfoundland. Should that be kept here, moved to Category:Lists of mammals by location, or moved to Category:Lists of mammals of North America? Note that the last option is three levels down. In Category:Lists of mammals by location there are a mix of country lists and more specific lists. Additionally, I don't know if all the lists by countries should be categorized into both Category:Lists of mammals by continent and Category:Lists of mammals by location? And then there are also the similar category trees for other groups of animals in Category:Lists of animals by location, so I suppose the organization should be similar. It all seems wrong but I don't know the best practice. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Naddruf: the article should be in the lowest possible category in the tree, per WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Specifically, does this mean that there should be no articles in Category:Lists of mammals by location, only subcategories, and all of the articles should be moved to one of the categories for a continent, such as Category:Lists of mammals of North America? Should there be a grouping for all country lists or should each country only be grouped with its own continent? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no articles in Category:Lists of mammals by location, only subcategories, and all of the articles should be moved to one of the categories for a continent, such as Category:Lists of mammals of North America. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Marcocapelle: Wait then is there a need for Category:Lists of mammals by continent? Because just about everything would go inside it, so there would be pretty much nothing else in Category:Lists of mammals by location. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure what is meant by "you are right". Are you saying that there should be a Category:Lists of mammals by location, such that the only thing it contains is Category:Lists of mammals by continent? If so, why? I'm not sure that matches with what was said in the CFD. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Catholicism and Category:Anti-Protestantism

See this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Category:Anti-Catholicism_and_Category:Anti-Protestantism. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on the naming of Category:Faculty by university or college and its subcategories

Please see Category talk:Faculty by university or college#Request for comment on naming. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for change to categorization of drag performers

There is a discussion about the categorization of drag performers going on at the LGBT WikiProject. It could really benefit from the participation of editors from this project who have a good command of categories. Please add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Categorization of drag performers. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help? Could use some feedback at the discussion. Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles by quality" categories

Hi all. Not sure whether this is the right place to bring this up, but hopefully someone here can guide me to the right place if it's not. The talk page templates which are used by WikiProjects for assessing article quality dump pages into thousands of different categories, such as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:B-Class Foo articles, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Start-Class Foo articles etc etc etc. Among this impressive tree are things like ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Category-Class Foo articles and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Template-Class Foo articles. Problem is, these categories aren't for articles. Pages, yes - articles, no. And the same holds true for assessment categories for Book, Redirect, Portal, etc., "articles". I realise that it's an enormous job, but shouldn't all those categories reflect that they are for pages rather than articles? Is some sort of global re-naming required? Grutness...wha? 14:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Category-Class Foo articles and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Template-Class Foo articles? Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check the contents of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Category-Class articles and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Template-Class articles for a few thousand examples... Grutness...wha? 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's set by the |ASSESSMENT_CAT= parameter in the individual WikiProject banner templates. So, if a banner has |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Foo articles, category talk pages bearing that banner will be placed in Category-Class Foo articles; but if it has |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Foo pages, you'll get Category-Class Foo pages. I don't think that it's worth worrying about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks. Grutness...wha? 14:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs apparent

The subcategories of Category:Heirs apparent are mainly populated with people who have become a monarch after they were a heir apparent, i.e. there is a large amount of overlap with the monarchs categories. Only the articles in the top Category:Heirs apparent about people who are current heirs apparent and the subcat Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded‎ are not part of the overlap. Should we add a header in every subcategory "this is meant for heirs apparent who never acceded" or should we rename every subcategory to "... who never acceded"? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it in this way makes a lot of sense in general, but perhaps an exception is in order for cases where being heir apparent is associated with a specific title (e.g. Prince of Wales and Dauphin). Furius (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a tracking category?

I've been doing some work on categorizing and templating categories. Most of the labels I get, but I can't seem to find a clear explanation of when a category should be considered a tracking category. What are the criteria for tracking category status? Tamwin (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Template:Tracking category help? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really? "This is a tracking category. It is used to build and maintain lists of pages—primarily for the sake of the lists themselves and their use in article and category maintenance. It is not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme." That's all well and good, but... Every category is used to build and maintain lists of pages. That's the whole point of having a category. Every maintenance category (in the sense of {{Maintenance category}}) is not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme. When is a maintenance category also a tracking category? When isn't a maintenance category a tracking category? I'm very confused. Tamwin (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamwin: Hello.

A maintenance category is simply a grouping of maintenance-type pages. It functions like most categories. See Category:Wikipedia policies for example. Use of this category is primarily to help editors find some particular policy they need to refer to, or perhaps to help when categorizing some policy to the correct subcategory. And, as I believe you may already suspect, a tracking category is a type of maintenance category.

My understanding of tracking categories are those created for the purpose of identifying pages that contains some specific problem: lack of sourcing, deprecated parameters, etc. See example Category:Pages using BLP sources with unknown parameters. An editor who is interested in fixing this error, wherever it may occur, could work off this list and fix them.

A possible grey area is the parent categories of tracking categories. For example, Category:Infoboxes with unknown parameters contains subcategories which are all tracking categories, but the Category:Infoboxes with unknown parameters itself is not a tracking category.

I think maybe the key phrase in the description "primarily for the sake of the lists themselves and their use in article and category maintenance" is not very clear if one doesn't already have some understanding of the distinction.

Is there some particular category you are aware that seems to be an edge case or somehow not clear if it's a tracking category or not? --DB1729 (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually came here for a similar thing. Currently we are placing a lot (most? all?) of the sub-categories in Category:Maintenance categories also in Category:Tracking categories, which leads to the latter having 19,288 categories. There is really no reason to lump everything into the tracking category tree. If a category is a maintenance category, it should only be in that category and if a category is a non-maintenance category which tracks something, then it should be placed in the tracking category, but a category shouldn't be in both. Gonnym (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prioritizing search results

I propose we add {{Maintenance category}}, {{Hidden category}}, {{Tracking category}}, {{Category class}} and {{Template category}} to MediaWiki:Cirrussearch-boost-templates with something like 25% priority. This would cause categories with these templates to display significantly lower, likely below all relevant reader facing categories. It will still be easy to search for the categories, they just won't be the things that are shown to our readers when typing something like "Category:W", "Category:A", "Category:T", "Category:S" or "Category:C" in the search bar. If no one objects I plan on making an edit request for this change in a week or so. --Trialpears (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears: looking at this briefly I don't see a problem with it. Also, interesting that we do this type of thing at all, I had no idea there was such a feature. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elli It's quite an obscure feature, but it can be useful. I've added a picture showing the issue. As you can see a lot of the search results are maintenance categories that aren't of interest to our readers. This issue also occur if you search for something more sensible, I tested "Tennis", "Train" and "Sweden" and all of them gave various internal maintenance categories of different types very high in the result. I don't think something not being a big issue should stand in the way of improvements. It will still be easy to search for internal categories, but you may have to write a few more letters. --Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears: I should clarify - I support the changes you/re proposing, the "I don't see a problem" was referring to your changes, not the status quo. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed and I've made MediaWiki talk:Cirrussearch-boost-templates#Protected edit request on 20 May 2021. --Trialpears (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Foo City

I would be grateful for input from other users at User talk:Rathfelder#People from Foo. Thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories

Recently I ran into the situation where, on a page with an unsorted category declaration, an editor added a duplicate category declaration, also adding the correct sorting key. It had no effect. I then needed to remove the unsorted declaration to fix the problem.

Obviously we don't want duplicate categories, but it can and does happen. In such a case, wouldn't it be better if the new sortkey was honored, rather than ignored?

Part of the reason I bring this up, it was recently confirmed to me, for some specific types of sorting problems, it is indeed necessary to add a duplicate category to fix it. --DB1729 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a page has code to place it into the same category twice (whether that be directly, as in [[Category:Foo]] or indirectly, such as by the use of a template) and they have different sort keys (either explicitly, or by using a default), the sortkey of whichever category declaration occurs last overrides all of the others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood — usually new categories are placed below the existing ones — it makes sense. Thank you! --DB1729 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highwaymen by nation

At present Category:Highwaymen has several sub-categories (Category:French highwaymen, Category:Irish highwaymen, etc). Individual highwayman articles are assigned to the sub-categories based on the country in which the subject was active, rather than their nationality - for example, Claude Duval, born in France but active in England, is in "English highwaymen" rather than "French highwaymen". I believe that this is potentially confusing, and would suggest one of two possible changes:

Categorize highwaymen by their nationality. In this case, Duval would move to "French highwaymen", James MacLaine to "Irish highwaymen", etc. This is my preferred option.
Rename the categories to Category:Highwaymen in England, Category:Highwaymen in Ireland, etc. This will preserve the current categorization while removing the confusion.

Any opinions would be welcome. Tevildo (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. In Category:Criminals by nationality, we categorize them by their nationality. Not by the locations where they committed crimes. Dimadick (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections, I've recategorized the relevant articles by the nationality of the subject. Tevildo (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chart creating companies in chart categories

Hi, need some third-party opinions about a very minor disagreement between me and User:Eurohunter. They have removed a few chart producting companies from the national chart categories, which seems prima facie incorrect (or highly unhelpful), and is made worse because e.g. Ultratop is by this edit completely removed from all charts- or even music-related categories. The same happened with e.g. Dutch Charts [1], the Italian versionand the Official Charts Company[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Official_Charts_Company&type=revision&diff=1021427230&oldid=1012843425 (perhaps others as well).

It seems to me that including the company that creates the national charts, in a category for national charts, is a logical, helpful thing, and that the "but it isn't actually a chart" reason is a too literal interpretation of the category: no one will be confused by seeing the chart creating company in the category, but people will be seriously hampered in finding the article if it isn't included in the category. (On an unrelated note, an additional category named something like "record chart creating companies" would probably be a good idea, we now have nothing grouping these clearly related articles across countries). Fram (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that I have told you to create redirects from chart names then categorise them. It's really transparent. It's the same like in case of studio album and songs from this album. So you will not categorise albums in categries for songs. It's obvious same as in case of charts and companies. Eurohunter (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's hardly transparent, it's fooling the readers in the hope that they will click on the redirect on the category page to find the chart company (and of course, if someone changes the redirect into an article, it again removes the link). No, you will indeed normally not categorise albums as songs, but all "song" categories at least start with a "see also" for the albums categories. Plus, they are also otherwise in the same category tree, via the artist. Here, you have simply removed them from the category tree. Categories in general are filled with stuff which aren't a subset, an example of the category title, but closely related to it, and not better off in a nearby other category (like in your album vs. songs example, where the choice is obvious and logical). I see no benefit in your change for these companies. Fram (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic scholars or Muslim scholars of Islam

There is a lot of confusion in category names between these two. Islamc scholar is a term which usually refers to Islamic scholars in the traditional sense, see - Ulama. Muslim scholars of Islam may refer to Muslims who have studied Islam as an academic subject in an academic course designed for study by both Muslims and non-Muslims. The category Category:Muslim scholars of Islam by century mostly refers to Ulama. It should be made clear on the category page if it refers to both Islamic scholars and Muslim scholars of Islam. If it refers mostly to Islamic scholars then renaming should be considered and those who are not Islamic scholars should be deleted and placed in a seperate category or a list. The same is true for it's subcategories. There are similar issues with many of the categories which use either of these terms. It is making it very difficult to look up Isamic scholars in the sense of Ulama through category searches and be sure the results are correct and not misleading. The same is true when looking up academic scholars who have studied secular courses. Amirah talk 21:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: if we would split Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, how would you distinguish Islamic scholars from other Muslim scholars of Islam? For example Badreddin al-Houthi, how do we do know if he would belong in Islamic scholars or in (other) Muslim scholars of Islam? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on adding a search function on category pages

IP user 50.201.195.170 recently edited Category:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to add the ability to easily search within the category by keyword. While I initially reverted the edit as not necessary for a category page, I think I may have been too hasty. After some discussion with the editor on my talk page, I think the functionality they are trying to add could be useful, especially on a heavily-populated category, and have self-reverted my edit pending further discussion. Is this a tool that should be added on category pages, and if so is there an existing template to add this search functionality? This is the editor's comment from my talk page explaining their reasoning:

Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitors&oldid=1029813923 do you think I'm right about something like that being a good idea to be included/transcluded onto category pages? Much like the "External tools" links are included on page history pages? The syntax is little documented - e.g. no mention of it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category#Searching_for_pages_in_categories. (Feel free to move this comment to a WT: page for further discussion.)
— 50.201.195.170

PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The search qualifier deepcat: is mentioned at H:DEEPCAT. Yes, I think such a search facility should be present as a search box in every category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:-) (Yes, eventually found that, which led me to edit ...3923.) I guess one of the Template:Other_category-header_templates would need to be edited. If so, which one?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American barrel racers

It seems that this category contains the subcat Barrel racers when it would seem logical to me for it to be the other way round; otherwise non-American racers would be 'automatically' placed in the parent cat. The barrel racers cat. also seems to have barrel racing as a subcat which again does not look correct to me. Thought best to raise here. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A mess: Category:Barrel racers has 40 members, including at least a couple of Canadians (Isabella Miller (barrel racer) and Gina McDougall), while Category:American barrel racers has 33 members, all of whom seem (incorrectly) also to be in the parent category. Category:Canadian barrel racers probably needs to be created. I see that "Though both sexes compete at amateur and youth levels, in collegiate and professional ranks, it is usually a rodeo event for women.", which leaves a question whether or not these categories are subsets of "Sportswomen" categories. (Category:American barrel racers has only one parent category, Category:American sportswomen, while the other one has several.) PamD 07:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both categories were created by @Dawnleelynn:, Category:Barrel racers in 2017 and Category:American barrel racers in 2019: they might like to comment. PamD 07:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: and @Eagleash: Hi, Yes, I did let this get out of date a little bit, but it's hardly a mess. There are six Canadian articles now which were created by a Women in Red editor during a sports edit-a-thon. Jerri Duce, Gina McDougall, Isabella Miller (barrel racer), Rayel Robinson, Viola Thomas, and Elaine Watt (barrel racer). So in the category American Barrel Racers there are the proper number of articles, which is 33 (which also counts that the Barrel racing article is not there like it is in the other category 40-7=33). The Barrel racers category should be removed, since it lists racers who are not American. That would fix that issue for that category. As far as the other category in Rodeo performers, no fixes need to be made, other than potentially removing it from the American barrel racers category as discussed just prior. Barrel racers belongs as part of all the other rodeo performers, there are eight events in rodeo; that's one of them. I like the idea of possibly creating a category for Canadian barrel racers but not sure where it would go yet. Thoughts? dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnleelynn: Sorry, but it really is a mess. "American barrel racers" should be a subcategory of "Barrel racers" and not the other way round, and someone categorised as "American barrel racer" should not also be categorised as "barrel racer". The category "barrel racers" should contain the subcategories "American barrel racers", "Canadian barrel racers" etc, and then only any individuals or topics not listed in those categories. PamD 05:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Thanks for picking this up; I'm not used to editing category pages. Can we 'just' re-order the cats by amending the parent cats at the foot of the cat pages and then working back through the cats to change each individual article, where needed, or does it require some more involved process? Eagleash (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I created the American category on purpose to be part of the category American sportswomen. As I said, the barrel racers category should be removed from there. The barrel racers category is under the Rodeo category. Each of the rodeo events are there, including barrel racing and there’s no need to break them down further. My mentor and I completely revamped and maintain the rodeo categories. I work mostly on rodeo articles. Cheyenne Frontier Days is happening here in a couple weeks. Rodeo is my main thing. The two categories should be separate. None of the other rodeo events are broken down further either. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see that 'American Barrel racers' should be a subcat of 'American sportswomen' this would imply that all barrell racers are women when that is seemingly not the case. My original question was about the order of 'Barrel racing', 'Barrel racers' and 'American barrel racers' but we seem to have moved slightly away from that now. I agree with PamD it *is* at best a 'muddle' and needs someone experienced in categorisation to sort it out. Eagleash (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all we need to do is remove "Barrel racers" from the category "American barrel racers" and add "American barrel racers" to the category "Barrel racers". As for "American barrel racers", given that it seems not all barrel racers are women, it would probably fit better in Category:American sportspeople by sport (which it can, of course, be a part of in addition to being part of "Barrel racers"). Aerin17 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aerin17: Thanks for joining the disc. In addition to what you say, 'Barrel racing' should be the parent cat (or grandparent cat) of both of those? Eagleash (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: If there was a "Barrel racing" category, then yes, it would definitely be the parent cat of "Barrel racers". However, it doesn't appear that there currently is a barrel racing category? You mentioned earlier that it appeared to be a subcategory of Barrel racers, but all I see there is the article Barrel racing, which doesn't belong in the Barrel racers category but probably doesn't need a category of its own. Aerin17 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aerin17: Ah... could have sworn there was a category 'barrel racing'; must have misread it! Anyway, PamD seems to have sorted things out to the extent that I can conclude an article review at AfC. Thanks all. Eagleash (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

montanabw Pinging my mentor for thoughts. She definitely has much category experience. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reordered the categories so that Category:American barrel racers is a subcategory of Category:Barrel racers. As the article Barrel racing says that it is not exclusively female, we cannot have either of these barrel racer categories being a subcategory of American sportswomen. Individual riders could be categorised in Category:American sportswomen or perhaps Category:American female equestrians. Perhaps there should be a more precise new Category:Female rodeo performers?

Most of the people in Category:Barrel racers should not be in that category as they are in its subcategory (or "child" category) Category:American barrel racers. I've also removed the inappropriate categories from the main article Barrel racing, and have created Category:Barrel racing, modelled on Category:Bull riding.

Someone now needs to remove the American riders from Category:Barrel racers, and perhaps create Canadian and any other necessary new national categories. PamD 23:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: @PamD: What was this discussion for? You are doing whatever you want to do even though I have said other editors have a stake in this and are more familiar with rodeo. What happened to Wikipedia's core principles of collaboration and consensus? Oh yes, that's right you don't need them because you know better than us. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnleelynn: It is apparent that some of us know a lot more about categories than you do: I am trying to help clear up the muddle you have created. I am sorry that you do not appreciate my efforts. I do not know anything much about rodeo, but I do understand categories, and the basic rules such as "an article is not listed in a category and also in its parent category except in some carefully defined circumstances known as non-diffusing categories". PamD 23:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnleelynn: OK, you decide: either (a) we create a new Category:Female American barrel racers, which would be a subcategory of Category:American sportswomen, and move each female member of Category:American barrel racers into that category, or (b) we leave them in Category:American barrel racers and put them as individuals into Category:American female equestrians, which is already a subcategory of Category:American sportswomen. Either way, they all need to be removed from Category:Barrel racers because they are members of a subcategory of that category. We cannot have a category which could include male barrel riders being put as a subcategory of an exclusively female category. The article barrel racing states that men sometimes participate, so a man could be in Category:Barrel racers or any national subcategory of it. I hope I've explained the rules of how categories work. PamD 23:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as it's now gone midnight I won't be editing any more for some hours. PamD 23:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not say my mentor oversees here? And you could not give her some time to chime in? I guarantee you she knows as much about categories as you do, if not more. She has created California Chrome FA and Secretariat (horse) among many other FAs and has been editing Wikipedia for at least 15 years. We have both been doing the rodeo categories since 2015 and have actual real world experience. Plus, Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been over them many times. If you don't know who he is, then you haven't been around categories as much as you think. If you have issues, we can ask him to take a look, he would be a neutral party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought. The American barrel racers category was created long after the rodeo categories. I think you are assuming it’s part of rodeo but it was specifically created for American sportswomen and to get exposure for the sport outside of the rodeo categories. I don’t even remember who added it to the rodeo category. I’d rather see it deleted than the rodeo event categories chang d. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnleelynn: California Chrome was created by Greensodagal (talk · contribs) who hasn't edited in over five years; and Secretariat (horse) was created by 209.105.200.72 (talk) (back in the days when you didn't need to register in order to create an article) and they haven't edited in nearly ten years, their last post being somewhat out-of-scope for Wikipedia as a whole.

As PamD notes, subcategories should be more specific than their parents, see Help:Categories#Category tree. There is much more detail at Wikipedia:Categorization#Category tree organization. I don't see anything in what PamD has written that goes against that community-agreed guideline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw and Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I can never remember which links generate a message to the user concerned and which don't, so "pinging" you both here as experts mentioned above, in case you haven't been alerted. PamD 08:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, for an edit to trigger a notification requires three things to be done in the same edit: (i) one or more new lines of text, within which there needs to be (ii) a link to the user page of the person that you intend to notify and (iii) your own signature, as produced by four tildes. (ii) need not use a template, but if it does, that template needs to produce a wikilink to the user page, not an "external" link. Templates such as {{replyto}}, {{u}} and {{user}} are all satisfactory for this. (ii) and (iii) need not be in the same new line of text as each other.

Let me know if 1032802576 didn't notify you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Those articles were brought to FA of which she was part of. Secretariat has been in my Watchlist a lot. As far collaboration and consensus I was not talking about on this page but taking off and making changes before the discussion was done. Thanks. dawnleelynn^(talk) 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Secretariat’s article. Not edited in 10 years? That’s crazy. There are tons of edits just in 2021 and 2021 alone. Many by me and montanabw. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnleelynn: Please calm down and read the post to which you are replying. The ten years figure referred to the edits by an editor, not the edits to an article ("they haven't edited", not "it hasn't been edited"). Please don't call other people's accurate statements "crazy". Who did and didn't edit a FA is not particularly relevant to a discussion about categorisation, though I note that neither Secretariat (horse) nor California Chrome has any instances of being a member of a category and also of that category's parent category - so Secretariat is in Category:Racehorses bred in Virginia but not also Category:Racehorses bred in the United States. As they are both Featured Articles, I'd have been astonished to find any such incorrect use of categories. The barrel racing women, not being Featured Articles, have not been subject to any careful scrutiny. PamD 19:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 221: / Line 221: @@
 ::::::As PamD notes, subcategories should be more specific than their parents, see [[Help:Categories#Category tree]]. There is much more detail at [[Wikipedia:Categorization#Category tree organization]]. I don't see anything in what PamD has written that goes against that community-agreed guideline. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 07:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 :::::::{{ping|Montanabw |Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao}} I can never remember which links generate a message to the user concerned and which don't, so "pinging" you both here as experts mentioned above, in case you haven't been alerted. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 08:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::[[User:PamD|PamD]], for an edit to trigger a notification requires three things to be done in the same edit: (i) one or more new lines of text, within which there needs to be (ii) a link to the user page of the person that you intend to notify and (iii) your own signature, as produced by [[WP:4TILDES|four tildes]]. (ii) need not use a template, but if it does, that template needs to produce a wikilink to the user page, not an "external" link. Templates such as {{tlx|replyto}}, {{tlx|u}} and {{tlx|user}} are all satisfactory for this. (ii) and (iii) need not be in the same new line of text as each other.
+::::::::Let me know if {{oldid|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories|next|1032802576|this edit}} didn't notify you. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 20:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 {{replyto|redrose64}} Those articles were brought to FA of which she was part of. Secretariat has been in my Watchlist a lot. As far collaboration and consensus I was not talking about on this page but taking off and making changes before the discussion was done. Thanks. [[User:dawnleelynn|<i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>]]<sup>[[User talk:dawnleelynn|(talk)]]</sup> 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 : I just checked Secretariat’s article. Not edited in 10 years? That’s crazy. There are tons of edits just in 2021 and 2021 alone. Many by me and montanabw. [[User:dawnleelynn|<i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>]]<sup>[[User talk:dawnleelynn|(talk)]]</sup> 18:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)