Template talk:Improve categories

History

Before I moved this template to the main space, I started conversations about its relevance and asked for help editing here and here. OlYeller^Talktome 22:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies between text and title

I noted a discrepancy between the title of this template ("Improve categories") and the text, which only deals with adding categories. This led to me moving the template, but it was suggested to rather have a discussion here. Now I'm wondering what's the intended purpose of this template? Is it only to ask for additional categories to be added, an improvement of the existing categories (e.g. moving into appropriate subcategories) or for both, as applicable? This would be important to know to figure out which changes have to be done to this template. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always used this template to denote an article needing improvement of categories, like more specific ones, or just simply additional categories. So it's both. The text should be adapted slightly to reflect that. Although the text has been the same since the creation of this template in March 2009: This article needs additional categories. I'd propose: This article needs additional or more specific categories. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't think "improve" implies "suck" as The Evil IP address stated in the move summary. I do think that the template was previously misleading so I changed the text to what Debresser suggested.

On a side note, we should probably get Twinkle to change its description of the template for page patrollers. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to the text of the template. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot use

Does anybody know which bots add this category to articles? I'm looking for a way to search for articles that have a specific category and no others. Encycloshave (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording and usage

I recently placed this template on Category:Attacks in 2014 when it didn't have any categories. It was then removed by 178.92.48.42 with the edit summary "template for articles, not for cat-s". Is the intended target for this template indeed restricted to articles? I thought categorising categories is just as important as articles. The current invariant wording of the template, "This article …" run of course against my point, so I would like that text to be sensitive to the namespace where it's placed. Could someone either implement that or point me to other templates where I can glean how to do that? Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Bednarek: use {{Underpopulated category}} – wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above or below cats?

The note on placement says that It is recommended that this template be placed at the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories., and I place it after the existing categories. Some other editors believe it should go before categories, and move it.

I don't feel strongly as to which is best but it would be helpful if we agreed on one or the other, before or after existing categories, so that there aren't unnecessary edits and watchlist alerts. I don't know whether AWB implements the placement above? @DatGuy: as the other editor in this instance. PamD 12:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Hmm... That sentence is quite confusing. Either way, we should probably open the discussion at a bigger forum. 'Where readers will look for the categories' could fit both descriptions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Yes, it might be worth talking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. But first, a question: Did AWB make that move as one of its set of cleanups, or was it something you chose to do?

I prefer to have {{uncat}} after any categories, partly because it seems logical, and partly because when I'm stub-sorting a biography which has no cats I'll add {{subst:L|birthdate||Surname, Forename}} {{catimprove}} (on two lines); the "subst:L" bit creates the DEFAULTSORT, which needs to come before the categories, and then the "Living people" and "nnnn births" etc categories. And then I've got {{catimprove}} after those cats. If the rule was that it went before the categories, presumably it would need to go between DEFAULTSORT and the cats, which would be impossible using the above short cut? Or before DEFAULTSORT, in which case it's separated from the cats? All a bit of a mess. PamD 16:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC) (corrected 16:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@DatGuy: repinging because I spelled your name wrong before! PamD 16:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Thanks for the ping. The edit was fully made by AWB. I simply checked over it to make sure it was useful and didn't break any of the AWB guidelines. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Thanks. So I need to address the powers that be of AWB! Will do. PamD 16:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I think it's Magioladitis. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Yes, I've just done a test run on User:PamD/sandbox/awbtest and it moves it to above the DEFAULTSORT - which separates it from the cats, which isn't ideal I reckon. Will raise the question. Ought to be cooking tea. Wikipedia the timesink: fascinating stuff. PamD 16:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: And I think Magioladitis is king of Yobot, but perhaps not AWB: have asked at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Why_does_AWB_put_.7B.7Bcatimprove.7D.7D_before_cats.2C_not_after.3F. PamD 16:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the spirit is that we put all these cat related categories directly above categories and allow only stub templates directly below. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Magioladitis. This template is most logically place before the actual categories. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Placement redux

Greetings and felicitations. The current recommendation is that this template be placed at the bottom of articles. However, this contradicts MOS:SECTIONORDER (and MOS:LEADELEMENTS), which state that cleanup templates belong at the top of an article.

1. Before the lead section[...]
3. Maintenance / dispute tags

The bottom of article is where editors look for categories, but it is not where most of us look for article-wide cleanup templates. Placing this cleanup template at the bottom of articles also buries it where it won't be seen, especially in longer articles and narrower browser windows. Please, let us change the placement to be in line with the MOS and logic. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a link to the editing interface on the words "help out." You can see a demonstration of this in the sandbox. Basically, just replace the wiki-text "help out" with "[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} help out]". This would allow for quicker/easier access to the editing interface, and would be consistent with almost all other similar templates. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placement above/below stub tags

An editor is currently consistently placing this tag below stub tags. The wording of the documentation currently says:

"It is recommended that this template be placed at the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories."

So I suspect that if challenged they will point to this as justification.

Could we change this to read:

(A) "It is recommended that this template be placed at the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories, but above any stub templates."

or

(B) "It is recommended that this template be placed near the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories."

or

(C) "It is recommended that this template be placed immediately below the categories.

or

(D) ... any other suggestions?

Can we for now not get into the broader discussion of whether this template should be treated along with all the other maintenance templates, which is a broader discussion: for now I'd just like us to clarify the existing wording, rather than change it entirely. PamD 07:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace article with {{pagetype|subjectspace=yes}} so that it makes sense in other locations (where it is already in use) and for consistency with {{Uncategorized}}/{{Uncategorized stub}}. (I'm not entirely sure what the subjectspace parameter does, but it's used elsewhere, so clearly it's necessary) --Pokechu22 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Template:Improve categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Template:Improve categories. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of this template

The placement of {{improve categories}} and {{uncategorized}} is the subject of an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RfC: Category maintenance templates in MOS:ORDER. Options suggested include specifying that they should go at the bottom below stubs, or below categories but above stubs, or not be mentioned (ie by implication go with the other maintenance templates near the top). PamD 09:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]