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.

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)

Removing Category:Pseudoarchaeology from Category:Pseudoscience[edit]

Right now Category:Pseudoarchaeology is a child of Category:Pseudoscience. This is wrong as archaeology is not considered a science in the English speaking world, being taught either as part of the humanities or the social sciences. What's the process for getting this done? Doug Weller (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Go to Category:Pseudoarchaeology, edit the page, find the line that begins [[Category:Pseudoscience and remove from that up to the next ]] inclusive. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much, fixed. Doug Weller (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
And was immediately reverted. Doug Weller (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this a sample of wikipedia:Humor? Then please allow me to chirp a pun or two: Category:Social sciences is under Category:Science, so I guess you have to dig deeper. -M.Altenmann >t 15:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I am aware of the raw between sciences and humanities, so another possible solution would be to write several articles about "social pseudoscience" to justify a more NPOVish subcategory within category:Pseudo-scholarship. E.g., Social Darwinism may be a good source for this new category. -M.Altenmann >t 15:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. The advice of Redrose64 was incomplete. Sometimes categories are preceded with the comment "<! --DO NOT delete this category-->". You have to delete it as well. -M.Altenmann >t 15:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that some of these categories were organised by someone unaware of the academic differences, just seeing the word 'science'. So yes, that's another problem. You've got an interesting suggestion there. Doug Weller (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Altenmann: My advice was complete as it applied to the category under consideration, which at the time of asking did not have any hidden comments (it still doesn't). Hidden comments won't work if you put a space before the first double hyphen - it needs to be formatted like this <!--DO NOT delete this category--> --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Categorization using templates[edit]

In response to non-article pages may get added to the category: When using templates to add pages to categories, it may be helpful to test using code to check the namespace of the page transcluding the template, perhaps something like

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|<!-- in article/main namespace -->[[Category:Category name]]|<!-- in another namespace -->}}, before committing a template to auto-categorize.

Or, for a userbox:

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:2}}|<!-- in User namespace -->[[Category:Category name]]|<!-- in another namespace -->}}

Ref. mw:Help:Magic words#Namespaces, mw:Help:Magic words#Namespaces 2. Slivicon (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Slivicon: We already have templates like {{main other}} and {{user other}} to do exactly that. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thanks, good to know. Maybe the article text should be updated to provide that helpful method to avoid the problem it describes? Slivicon (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's covered by the link in the sentence "Also, see Category suppression for ways of keeping inappropriate pages out of template-generated categories." --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories on novel subjects[edit]

In respect of the discussion on Burgher sportspeople I find the current guideline lacking on what I believe is a generally followed practice in categorisation:

  • Categories should correspond to a subject which has been defined or had coverage in third party sources

This is, to say, that the topic isn't one which is an entirely new creation through Wikipedia. The only pertinent part of the guideline I could reference for that was the section on defining characteristics. However, this deals with whether a category should be applied to a subject, not whether a category on that subject merits creation in the first place. User:Obi2canibe cites the guideline diffusion of large categories as a relevant reason for creating subcategories on topics which have no real world application, and there is some precedent of doing this.

I've seen plenty of discussion of whether categories should be subject to a notability check on an article (i.e. "is this relevant to the person's notability" – the purpose of "defining characteristics") but I haven't seen any discussions applying WP:Notability to the creation of categories themselves. Have I missed something here? SFB 21:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I think we should make a distinction here between (1) entirely novel creations versus (2) novel intersections of existing accepted characteristics. We should be pretty strict on the first type of categories in terms of notability, but I can imagine that the size of an existing category may sometimes justify the second type of categories. In fact it already happens a lot (e.g. biographies by century and nationality). Though I agree that in the particular case quoted here the size of Category:Burgher people is not big enough for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Container category eponymous page[edit]

Category:Container categories is defined as "subcats only". How to proceed with situations when there is a single page, which from my understanding is eponymous, such as the following:

Slivicon (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In general I'd remove (or replace by catdiffuse) wherever the category does (or could) legitimately directly contain a page (e.g. an eponymous article). You might want to look at the history of the page, but generally editors have been adding/removing/changing these tags without any explanation. Another thing to do is to look at similar (i.e. sibling) categories - I can't see any good reason why, for example, some categories for US states would be container cats and others not. I've changed the California category. DexDor (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@DexDor: As always, thanks for the help and info :) Slivicon (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sub Cat[edit]

Hello, should the Category:Disused railway stations in Croydon be a sub cat of Category:Former buildings and structures in Croydon (as defunct schools currently is)? At present it does not appear as a sub cat. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I don't think so. The various "Disused railway stations in ..." categories are for stations that are no longer served by passenger trains, although they may still exist. The various "Former buildings and structures in ..." cats are for buildings which don't exist any more. Category:Disused railway stations in Croydon should be a subcat of Category:Railway stations in Croydon, which in turn should be a subcat of Category:Buildings and structures in Croydon. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The two stations in particular I was looking at are Spencer Road Halt railway station (station closed 100 years ago) and Selsdon railway station where the lines (which served both) closed 30+ years ago and only some remnants of the structures survive: a footbridge (forming part of an alleyway) in the case of Spencer and possibly part of the platforms for Selsdon, though this is not verified. Eagleash (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)