Wikipedia talk:Categorization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CAT)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

Subcategory vs. Parent Category in NJ[edit]

This is in regard to the categories Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey and Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey by county. If we have one parent category, for instance, the Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey category with 940+ entries, this would help serve as a guide for those searching for individual locations within the state (like a glossary). As for the Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey by county, not all readers may know what county a specific location is in. I find that both work for helpful navigation, even if some believe it is not necessary. To be consistent with states in the U.S., see the subcategories in Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States by state, where practically all, except a couple Northeast states, have a parent category and multiple subcategories. NJ should not be any exception. Plus it will be time consuming to delete the already included categories added to the pages. Thewildone85 (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. As a general rule, we shouldn't intersect two specific facts with each other (here, the type of community and the county of location) but instead should intersect at different levels of generality to make sure readers are better able to browse by multiple methods. By county we should only categorize populated places generally (as in Category:Populated places in Essex County, New Jersey), and the kind of community/municipality should all be categorized at the more general state level (as in Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey). postdlf (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree, based both on policy and reality. There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Counties of the United States in which an editor argues that counties are non-defining, arguing that a broad array of structures of places, buildings and organizations by county should be deleted; The overwhelming consensus is that these structures should be retained, largely because of the clear benefits of organizatio and navigation. As one editor stated, "Keep all as container categories. These categories serve an important purpose in organizing the 'Foo in STATE by county' categories, which are a logical way of breaking up a state category, especially since some of the "Foo in STATE" categories could otherwise have well over 1,000 articles."
  • That's exactly where we are with Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey, which is an utterly disorganized mess of 939 articles, every one of which is effectively organized for navigation purposes in Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey by county. WP:SUBCAT specifically states that "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second, then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. For example, Cities in France is a subcategory of Populated places in France, which in turn is a subcategory of Geography of France." and that "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category..." As a readily diffused category, this editing guideline completely supports the use of Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey by county as a means to diffuse the articles, with Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey existing solely as a container.
  • The mid-parent Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey is itself an ill-defined, unusable mess of nearly a thousand articles. Bizarrely excluded are all of the entries in Category:Census-designated places in New Jersey, which are all unincorporated communities that are left out of this mid-parent. Furthermore, all of the incorporated places are not grouped in any mid-parent, and the ultimate parent in the state, Category:Populated places in New Jersey, should by this logic contain every single populated place in the state. It doesn't, and people looking to use the category system would have to know that a particular place is unincorporated, but is not a census-designated place to make any use of this overpopulated mid-parent.
  • Per the overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Counties of the United States, we should be categorizing by county and we should be diffusing these categories to the county level. Putting every single unincorporated community (but not census designated places) both at the county level and in the parent Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey adds nothing and patently violates WP:SUBCAT. All of these needlessly duplicated entries nationwide should be deleted on that basis. Duplication of the article at multiple levels of categorization is inconsistent, irrationally structured and violates policy. Alansohn (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I also don't think these articles should be placed in both a parent and subcategory. My agreement with the OP is limited to the main point that all populated places should not only be subdivided by county, but we should instead give readers the option of browsing by county or by type of community/municipality. Your comments seem to more address the OP than my solution to that.

      You said the state-level categories are a "disorganized mess", yet they are auto-sorted alphabetically. That's not disorganization at all. And the easy solution to the separation of the CDPs from the unincorporated communities is to make the CDPs a subcategory, as a CDP is a type of unincorporated community. Category:Populated places in New Jersey should contain every populated place in the state, but only as a container category. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it's best to have the parent and the subcat in each entry, for reasons given by Wildone and Postdlf. They are not really messy, since they are alphabetically sorted. Sure there are over 900 entries inside, but this is a useful tool for those in search of these locations. Modifications are allowed from what I have seen here. Tinton5 (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:SUBCAT clearly explains policy. Organization by county is common practice. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Counties of the United States clearly comes out in favor of keeping counties as a container category, and I agree. Additionally many supposed unincorporated communities created for NJ are stubs that are questionable, not verifiable, and should be re-directedDjflem (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
So far as categorization on Wikipedia has become nearly useless for normal users who are not steeped in the arcane rules that seem to be designed primarily for the benefit of those who maintain the Byzantine organization, I don't really think it matters that much how this turns out. But as someone who has on occasion had the need to find a community without knowing the county, I found it helpful to have a category nicely sorted in alphabetical order. olderwiser 16:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, this discussion is for the benefit of those who are supposed to understand the byzantine organization of the category system. One of the rules for this system, WP:SUBCAT, specifies that pages should not be placed both in a category and its parent. I'm not sure how violating this editing guideline benefits anyone, nor do I see why we should deliberately place articles at multiple levels of categorization simply for the benefit of those unaware of how to search for an article using other means. How would any editor, whether educated in the byzantine rules or not, would know to Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey to find a place, while also knowing not to look there is the place is incorporated or a census designated place? Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It only illustrates that the categorization rules are written primarily to facilitate precise categorization rather than to assist actual readers with genuine issues in navigating the category structure. Why should categories presume that a reader knows which county a community is in? It is mostly unrealistic unless you are a local. olderwiser 20:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
From User talk:PointsofNoReturn#Question/clarification where I had asked for clarification of statement made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Categorization of unincorporated communities in New Jersey
I think that organizing unincorporated communities by county would be a good idea, and then within the counties alphabetize the names of the communities. That would make the category easy to navigate. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The above just illustrates how far some editors are from the idea that whatever we do in categorization (as in WP in general) should help the readers. Having populated place articles (of each major subcategory, like cities, towns, etc.) in BOTH county categories of a state AND in a state-wide category of all the populated places. This helps the reader who wants 'all state' information and knows nothing about nor cares to learn what county the populated place is in and it helps the other person who wants to look at populated places within a county. Any other comments are just 'against the reader'. The category rules need to be written to match what we need to do to help users and not for prettiness, pettiness and control. Hmains (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As this dual categorization violates WP:SUBCAT?[edit]

Given that WP:SUBCAT clearly excludes the dual categorization by both county and state, why should it be done here? Any suggestions of a policy basis for its use here? Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

container category[edit]

where is a guideline which describes how to handle Category:Container categories and how to depopulate categories?


  • jewish nose was in category:jews. however a user deleted category on the reason that cat:jews is a container. I feel this is wrong, that containers should be depopulated by moving items into subcategories, not by throwing things away, which is imo against common sense.

in the case there is no such guideline, please help me to resolve the disagreement with @Monochrome Monitor: -M.Altenmann >t 15:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:EGRS? (a "diffusing" category being a "container" category)
Another reason why jewish nose cannot be in category:Jews is while that category indicates "persons" and when it wouldn't be a container category it should only contain biographical articles per WP:COPSEP.
Categorization in Category:Jewish portrayals in media (already containing some "stereotyping" articles) and/or Category:Jewish-related controversies (Jewish nose#Plastic surgery controversy indicating a controversy) are maybe better suited cats (although I have not enough knowledge of the area to certify). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly it and should be categorised somewhere within Category:Jews and Judaism. I put it in Category:Jewish portrayals in media, along with the main article about Stereotypes of Jews. – Fayenatic London 19:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Jewish portrayals in media isn't bad. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, someone did that. Okay then. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Take two about container category[edit]

Sorry, I was probably was unclear about the question. Let me clarify. Is it a correct solution to delete the article from the category to which tree it clearly belongs? For comarison, suppose some "overcategarized" category is to be deleted. We don'r simple remove this category tag from articles. We put this category somewhere else in the category tree.

IMO this issue must be clearly written in the policy, because there are plenty of people armed with twinkle mop work hard of "cleaning" wikipedia without applying common sense. In old times there were zealots who reverted important additions with edit "incorrect English"/"poor grammar". And the explanation that this is an invalid reason was added to policies, despite it being pretty obvious to people with a grain of common sense.-M.Altenmann >t 15:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

adding parent categories[edit]

Should this be happening? Category:2000s American animated films is not a child of Category:American films, but it would be better to do that than add a redundant category to all of the other films. (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you asked Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs) why they are doing this? Somebody else clearly has: see User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao#Please continue. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
But why is this unusual set-up permitted? (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this unusual set-up should be challenged. The template says "For convenience, all ... are included in this category.", but it's not clear to me who it's supposed to be convenient for; it's certainly not convenient for editors who tidy up category tags on articles. And the "all ... are included" statement is often completely wrong - e.g. Category:American films (excluding subcats) currently contains just 205 pages, but the subcategories actually contain thousands of articles. If an editor really wants a single list of all the articles in category (including subcats) then there are tools that can do that[1]. DexDor (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks ago, above, User:Redrose64 linked a section of Ser Amantio user talk by its section heading "Please stop". Next day the link was broken by User:Walter Görlitz who changed that heading to "Please continue" [2].

Maybe-relevant talk sections, 2015 only:

--P64 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Category:Video games based on films a diffusing category?[edit]

The terms of what makes a category "diffusing" or "non-diffusing" are still opaque to me—I get the gist, especially re: nationalities, gender, etc., but not with the edge cases. Is Category:Video games based on films a diffusing category? I would think that it would be fine to be included in just Category:Video games based on films directed by George Miller rather than that and its parent, no? (Side note: why would an article need to be in both Category:Wii games and Category:Wii-only games?) – czar 20:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If a category is not tagged as a non-diffusing category etc then the normal WP:SUBCAT rules apply. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Ick, the triple-categorizations are making my head hurt. Video games...based on films...that were directed by George Miller. The subcategories for franchises make perfect sense (Category:Harry Potter game series, Category:Predator (franchise) games‎, etc.), but the contents of Category:Video games based on films by studio and Category:Video games based on films by director are really WP:OCAT. Neither subcategorization represents a characteristic of the games themselves. Our category system really gets bogged down by this compulsion some editors feel to subdivide any category with more than a handful of articles, and to intersect more and more facts regardless of how tangential their relationship is or how narrowly specific the end result is. It's really a kind of entropy, not an improvement in information organization. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
What does it mean for "top" category video games based on films to be diffusing or non-diffusing, given that it contains these two subcategories --evidently container cats altho not explicitly so-- (^^ i looked only 5 levels down, 4 levels down from the studio and director containers, using CatScan 3.0)
as well as 47 other subcats (in the alphabetical listing, perhaps mutually exclusive) for films, series, brand names, etc?
There are 928^^ pages under Video games based on films, of which 210 are pages in that "top" category. The two container subcategories jointly cover 586 pages [=453+312-179], while the other 342 [=928-586] are nowhere under the studios nor the directors container, of which 213^^ are not pages in the top cat.
The top cat provides no descriptive or instructional preface. I suppose that some editors have deemed it diffusing with respect to its 47 alpha-listed subcats, some have deemed it non-diffusing with respect to its studio and director container subcats, perhaps many or most. --P64 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

disambiguations for Categories question?[edit]

If Mercury (planet) were the *only* Mercury article which had a Category based on it, should the category for the Planet have the disambiguation in the name?Naraht (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetical question. If the question weren't hypothetical would it be worthwile to answer? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
We name categories after their parent articles, and follow the same disambiguation that the article does regardless of what other categories exist. This is considered more predictable and thus easier to deal with than if we were to make a completely separate judgment on disambiguation for a category structure (though we do on occasion go even further to disambiguate categories than we would for the corresponding articles). postdlf (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)