Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marcocapelle (talk | contribs) at 09:10, 8 May 2020 (→‎Proposal: a bot to place eponymous categories as the first category on articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
See also: WT:CAT and WT:CFD
WikiProject iconCategories
WikiProject iconThis 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.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories articles


How much categorization guidance does a city need?

When editors document the way categorization is (or should be) used for particular types of pages that's generally a good thing (e.g. it may help other editors to categorize pages consistently). However, this can go too far -

Chicago has this, this and this. The only editor to have worked on these pages (apart from wikignoming) left wp in 2009.  The lack of other edits to these pages (even where they are incorrect, contradictory or incomplete) suggests that they are not in use. In fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago#Categories doesn't even refer to the this guidance.

I'm probably more familiar with wp categorization than most editors but much of the guidance (e.g. "the list function of a Category page") is unclear to me and the jargon (e.g. "PSP000L") appears to not be used anywhere else. 

The way in which we categorize pages about Chicago should generally be the same as the way we categorize pages about any city so there's no need for such detailed guidance for one city.

Note: One of the categories referred to in the guidance has recently been deleted.

I propose taking a scalpel to these pages (possibly reducing some of them to a single paragraph or to a redirect) - or userfying them. Is there anything worth salvaging into more general guidance about categorization of articles about a city?

Pinging User:Funandtrvl who was involved in some discussions with the author of these pages. DexDor (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me! I have not looked at the subpages for ages! Yes, to simplify the system should be our goal, and to match (mostly) the city guidelines that other major cities use. I've usually gone to this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline when organizing an article about a city. Maybe it can apply to categorization also. Let me know how we can help you sort this out. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved the 3 pages (and the corresponding talk pages) to subpages of the user that created them - e.g. User:Pknkly/WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Categorization scheme. DexDor (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 17#Template:Uncategorized

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 17#Template:Uncategorized. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Which century to use when breaking down by century

The cat Category:New_Zealand_people_by_occupation_and_century has many subcats that need sorting. Before I get started, I'm looking for the rules around which century to put biographies into when the subject's work spanned multiple centuries. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've never seen any guidelines. I just try to work out when they were actually active at the relevant occupation, assuming generally that they would stop before they reached the age of 80 and probably didnt start much before 18. So I'd like to know if there are actually any better ideas. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that some biologists are active into their 90s. For example, Richard Eric Holttum published an accepted new genus of ferns, Megalastrum, at the age of 91, although this is doubtless unusual. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I try to look at the dates when they were actually doing it, whatever it was. Scientists and doctors often carry on until they fall over. Jerry Morris published just before his 99th birthday. But I think these dates should relate to the activity, not just the lifetime. Rathfelder (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism and anti-Capitalism

Some time ago I added categories related to Fascism as subcategories to categories related to anti-Capitalism, the reason I did so was because Fascism was also an anti-Capitalist ideology, they viewed Capitalism and Communism as two sides of the same coin, and presented themselves as an alternative to both, however, User Doug Weller reverted my edits, his objection was that by adding these categories, I was also be including in it people who were not Fascists (such as Communists and Socialists), I don't see this as being the case, I view it as simply adding another group of anti-Capitalists, I restored the edits later, but I was reverted by another user who used his rationale, I would like to see what other Wikipedians think about this.

Here are the edits that got reverted: [1] [2] [3] [4] -- 186.213.52.100 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a fair revert because fascism is not clearly a form of anti-capitalism. Many fascist movements have had state capitalism aspects. The category hierarchy should only link concepts that clearly stem from one another. A clear relationship between fascism and anti-capitalism does not exist, so the trees are best kept separate. SFB 13:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have to disagree, there is clearly a relation between Fascism and anti-Capitalism, they viewed Capitalism as materialist, individualist, internationalist, etc, perhaps in practice many Fascist regimes and movements might have had state capitalist elements, but even if that was actually the case, I think in this case theory should be more important than practice, and Fascist theory is very clearly opposed to Capitalism. -- 177.19.68.97 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fascism is authoritarian and nationalist, which is unrelated to capitalism, i.e. fascism is neither a form of capitalism nor a form of anti-capitalism. The reverts were justified. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fascism is not merely authoritarian nationalism, it is an ideology which has it's own theory, core tenets, etc, and a core tenet of Fascism happens to be anti-Capitalism, so Fascism technically is a form of anti-Capitalism. -- 177.206.208.75 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for new script

Hi. I'm interested in a new Wikipedia script that helps co-ordinate creation of new categories - that is, what categories are too big and what categories should exist due to parent category being too big but don't. ミラP 22:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: would you care to define "too big"? Opinions on the acceptable size of categories, whether "too big" or "too small", appear to differ greatly. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just a heads up to the members of this project. The recent decision here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 22#American television series by network was correct IMO but it has created errors in various articles. The two that I've found so far are Dead Head (TV series) which was not original to A&E and The Red Green Show which was not original to PBS. I've no way of knowing how many articles are affected by this but I'm guessing it is more than a handful. In the past an edit-a-thon might have been a solution but I don't see those happen anymore. I guess our best bet is just to be aware of it and remove the incorrect categories when we come across them. MarnetteD|Talk 18:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to restrict WP:C2D slightly

See discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Proposal_to_restrict_WP:C2D_slightly. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this was implemented, and the discussion was archived at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_18#Proposal_to_restrict_WP:C2D_slightly. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to abolish WP:C2E

See discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#WP:C2E. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, no action was taken. The discussion was archived at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_18#WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot, which is a proposal for an admin bot to tag and delete empty categories in accordance with WP:C1. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category loops for countries by language spoken

Hello!

Short examples will speak better than long explanations:

The issue here seems to be the custom of adding entire country-level category trees to a Foo-speaking countries and territories category, when adding only the eponymous article into the category should be sufficient.

Then again, the interest of categorizing countries by language spoken or official language can be questioned, as has been argued in discussions which resulted in the deletion of e.g. Ukrainian-speaking, Irish-speaking or Polish-speaking categories.

What would be the best way to solve these circular inclusions? Place Clichy (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need solving? The important thing is that each appropriate connection is made between each category or category and article that would help readers navigate and see relationships. Whether one can then click through several categories to get back where they started doesn't seem like an issue. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUBCAT, in particular Category chains formed by parent–child relationships should never form closed loops. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Connections between things is what hyperlinks (between articles) are for. Categories should be for categorizing and as we move down the category tree the number of pages in each category (including subcats) should decrease - thus, category loops shouldn't exist. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to specify what the inclusion criteria of such categories would be.
I agree with the OP that country categories should not be in Foo-speaking categories. DexDor (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the country articles should be in the in Foo-speaking categories, not the country categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locality categorization by historical subdivisions

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Your input about the categorization of settlements is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions. Thank you, Renata (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Template:Clubplayerscat for players categories

At Special:WantedCategories we get a lot of categories of the form Category:(club) players etc needing creating but it's a bit time-consuming as you have to work out the various weird formats used by the parent categories (I'm looking at you, Category:Soccer players in Canada by team <g>), and check that the category matches the parent article and isn't just someone using an old sponsorship name etc. I've created a template to make that process easier, {{Clubplayerscat}} just needs a parameter to tell it what country the club is from - see eg Category:AS Aïn M'lila players. At the moment it just works for (association) football players where the category name ends in a single word like "footballers" or "players", the long-term plan is to make it work with other sports too, and to do equivalent templates for managers, seasons etc. It needs a bit of polishing but for now it needs beta-testing on real categories, if anyone wants to play with it. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category help needed for WP:Task Center

Hi category experts! I'll try to keep this concise, but for context: I recently introduced a feature at the WP:Task Center (which is being considered for inclusion on a streamlined standard welcome template) that allows editors to go to a random page needing help within a large maintenance category like Category:Articles to be expanded. I ran into a bit of a stumbling block since most of those categories are sorted by month but the random article tool can no longer handle subcategories. Luckily, most of them have an associated category like Category:All articles to be expanded that I can use instead, but for three of them, I had to use an awkward workaround to link to the most recent month's pages instead (ctrl+F for "February 2020" at the Task Center page to find these). I'm not enough of a category expert to create "all"-style tracking categories for these; could one of you help do that? Thanks! Sdkb (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can any of you help with this? The Task Center is slated to become a major centralized destination for new editors, so it's important to get it up to speed, and we need help from category experts to do so. Sdkb (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping thread. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines

I'm trying to figure the following two things:

  1. whether this category can be added to Wikipedia:Notability (software), and
  2. how to best do that if it can.

There's also Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) which I'd also know about as well.

Even though both pages are "essays" per se, there seems to be some value to including them with the other pages listed at WP:SNG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not add the essays to the Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines; one who naviagets to that category would expect to see only guidelines, not essays. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might be the case, and can understand the reason for keeping essays separate from guidelines; from a practical standpoint, however, it seems like it might be a good idea if there was a category page where all of these types of pages could be found, if such a suitable page doesn't already exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just add them to the parent Category:Wikipedia notability - or if there's say 6+ then create a notability essay category. Le Deluge (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People from categories?

Do we have a clear definition of how we define where a person is from when adding a People from ... category? Can a person be from more than one place? -- GhostInTheMachine (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is broadly inclusive, and yes. You should search the talk page archives, there have been many discussions on this over the years. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any summary or overall conclusions? — GhostInTheMachine (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding, which I think is generally accepted, is that "from" is ambiguous. It might mean a person was born there, grew up there, lived there or did whatever they were notable for there. So they can indeed be from more than one place. But it's not necessary, or in my view desirable, to include, for example, the place where they were born if they emigrated as a small child and never returned, nor all the places they ever lived. It's a matter of judgement. So where Barack Obama was born is clearly significant. And I think there are rules about international sportspeople. Rathfelder (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up category

Is there a way to set up a category that duplicates Category:All Wikipedia level-4 vital articles but goes to the page itself instead? This is for this conversation, which led to this one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sdkb: I guess it makes sense to ping the participants in the other discussions so that they can give input to this discussion as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: it's basically a technical question — how do I set up a category based on another? — and I don't want to annoy others with excessive pings, but if you think it's needed for transparency or something then go ahead. Is anyone here able to help with the question itself? (my somewhat similar question above has also gone unanswered for over two months now) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batman characters Clean up

I've being looking at the Batman Characters category and it's very poorly done. Many characters that do not meet the notability guideline is kept there and there is also cases likr Ned Creegan which links to another page. I recommend we prune it by removing all pages that fail to meet the notability guideline. --169.0.216.37 (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)John Smith[reply]

Actors from Saskatoon

Category:Actors from Saskatoon is a container category. The sub-categories include Category:Actresses from Saskatoon and Category:Male actors from Saskatoon. Having an "actress" category makes having "male actor" category redundant.. It is commonplace to use "actor" for males and "actress" for females. If you are going to say "male actors," why not have a "female actors" category? Thoughts? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_18#Category:Norfolk_County_treasurers

@Bearcat, Grutness, Peterkingiron, Fayenatic london, and Namiba: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion I suggested to nominate the entire tree of Category:County treasurers in the United States for deletion, as a WP:NPOL-passing and generally not defining political office. Before immediately carrying on at CfD, do you have any further input to this suggestion? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to leave it now, unless you are tackling more of Category:County officers in the United States as non-notable. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing from me - IIRC my only comments in the discussion were about Norfolk being ambiguous, with the county in England being the best known. Grutness...wha? 10:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support such a nomination. I think we underestimate the impact of county government in many circumstances and generally overestimate the impact of legislators. Moreover, while being a county officeholder does not guarantee inherent notability, there are many circumstances in which those office holders are notable through WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 15:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is perhaps worth noting that this appears to be the only "County treasurer by county" category in the entire US, and, indeed, that there are only two "County treasurer by state" categories - neither of which have as many as 20 articles. I think that until there are at least a few more "by state" categories, "by county" is a bit premature. Grutness...wha? 03:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I built the County treasurers hierarchy during the CfD discussion, because the Category:County treasurers in Massachusetts parent was not even in Category:American treasurers, and when I put it there, I found that most of the pages directly in that one were County treasurers from Wisconsin. That's how we ended up with two categories by state. I did not look into how notable the Wisconsin people are; the pages may have been mostly created by user:Packerfansam. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cfdnotice listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Cfdnotice to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

See an RfC on exceptions to WP:OCAWARD

The RFC is at WT:Overcategorization#RfC_on_exceptions_to_WP:OCAWARD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: a bot to place eponymous categories as the first category on articles

Per MOS:CATORDER, when an article is categorised

Eponymous categories should appear first

This is a very helpful form of sorting, because it makes it easy to find the eponymous category at the bottom of the page, which allows further exploration of the topic of the article.

However, it is a long way from being universally applied. When I encounter it, I often fix it, as in this edit[5] today to TAP Air Portugal.

But that's a bit tedious and slow, and the task could be easily done by a bot, which I will set up if there is consensus to do so. I envisage an initial pass through all the subcats of , and a re-run every month or so to catch new eponymous categories and any existing ones where the order has been broken.

The methodology is simple:

  1. Get a list of all the categories which are subcats of Category:Eponymous categories
  2. Convert those titles to a list of articles
  3. Trawl through those articles, and in each case if the articles is categorised in a category whose title exactly matches the article name, then

Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS The bot would of course be subject to approval at WP:BRFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories&oldid=955527143"