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.

Force feeding[edit]

This is one of those can of worms. I see Category:Force feeding has recently been created and been given the same cats as Force feeding, namely Cruelty to Animals, Nutrition and Torture. Now I can sort of see why the article gets the Torture cat as that's a main focus of it - but articles such as Pliers and Electricity don't get the cat. But the category is currently all about its use in food production - the foie gras article and so on. Such uses may not be nice but they are legal in many countries, unlike torture. My feeling is that the torture cat should be removed from Category:Force feeding but it's the kind of area where I'd hesitate to step without some discussion first. Le Deluge (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. As the creator of the category, my intention was this to be used for non-human animals. It would not concern me if torture was removed, but I can also see the arguments for it being retained.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
A question rooted in my ignorance of all things Cat: Would it be helpful to establish the intended scope of the category via a description at the top, or is that rarely done? I've often had problems with categories like Category:ABS-CBN shows where it's unclear if the intention of the category is to log every show broadcast on this network, or just the original programs. Descriptions are helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb, the problem is that not everyone sees the category preamble - eg when they are tagging with Hotcat. So the onus is on the creators of categories to give them names that are as idiot-proof as possible, and an explanatory preamble should be regarded as a last resort. In your case it might be best to either seek out existing guidance from WikiProject TV or go through a process there to develop guidelines.
It doesn't help when in effect there's two main aspects to a single category, it's no bad thing to split them up even if the eponymous article covers both. My real point was that although copying the categories direct from an eponymous article can be a useful way to get some cats onto a new category, it needs to be done with care and a recognition that there are subtle differences between categorising an article and a category. In this case @DrChrissy might have been better off with Category:Force feeding of animals (and delete Category:Force feeding altogether to keep it from showing up on Hotcat. Both for the reasons above and because this is an area which touches on both animal rights and human torture, both of which are highly emotive making them long-winded subjects for discussion in a Wiki environment. More focus means fewer distractions. Le Deluge (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This seems more difficult than already implied; the first thing I thought of when I saw the category name was therapeutic force feeding of animals.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I would be happy to see this moved to Force feeding of animals. I actually had not considered Arthur's theraputic aspect, thanks for bringing that up (no pun intended!). I think the theraputic aspect would be covered by Force feeding of animals.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorization of Years articles[edit]

Recently I had added, Category:20th century in music‎ to those pages where it belonged. Although I have been questioned by one of the editor who referred me to WP:SUBCAT and told that if 1998 in music has Category:1998 in music, then there's no need to add Category:20th century in music.

He must be correct. Although we have articles such as 1998 in Ireland, they are having categories about not only the particular year but also the decade and the century. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that sounds correct. The reason there is no need to add a decade or century category if you already have a year category, is that the year category will be a subcategory of the decade category, and the decade category will be a subcategory of the century category. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. We should keep the category tree and its items clean and reduce duplicated entries as much as possible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the creation of a category like Category:1990s in music disrupts the century listing, so it means the "199x in music" articles should appear in the decade category instead (which they currently don't, by the way), as that is the highest level parent. That said, there is still some appreciable usage in having a category which groups all the year articles of a century. I disagree that just because there is hierarchical logic we should automatically dismiss potentially useful structures. SFB 19:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I support the births and deaths structure where we have comprehensive decades categories defined by the first three digits such as "199x" and Category:20th-century births contains both 1900s births and 2000 births. Thus the latter is in both the 20th-century cat directly and the 21st-century cat via the "2000s" decade.
Offhand this disagrees with Magioladitis, agrees with Sillyfolkboy. --P64 (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@P64, Sillyfolkboy, and Debresser: I would like a more specific answer. 1998 in music should be

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No chances that we will ever have consensus to remove any of those categories at all. It is better to have each of them, they look sophisticated. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 09:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Categorising by place of burial[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Categorising by place of burial for a follow-up discussion after my recent close on Burials by city. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Treaties by country[edit]

There is a discussion going on at Category talk:Treaties extended to Christmas Island about the inclusion of categories in multiple levels of parents, contrary to the WP:SUBCAT's "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category ... ". Editors interested in categorization are invited to comment there. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Western Europe[edit]

In Category:Western Europe, some countries as listed directly in the category, some are listed as subcategories, and some are listed as both. Which is the correct categorization? Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Exactly which ones are missing from Category:Western Europe directly? Hmains (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Hmains: The ones that are missing from the category directly are: Andorra, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Malta, Norway, San Marino, Sweden, and Vatican City. Do you have an opinion on whether Western European countries should be listed directly in the category, as subcategories, or both? Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and added Vatican City since it was listed neither directly, nor as a subcategory, and is pretty unambiguously in Western Europe. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This is all fine. The only thing not fine with Category:Western Europe is another editor keeps insisting that Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are 'countries' to be listed here. Hmains (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorising buildings by street[edit]

I would encourage editors to vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 17#Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by road & all subcategories on whether it is a good idea to categorise buildings by street. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Diffusing category?[edit]

Thoughts? Where we have: a) Category:Opera; and below it b) (sub)Categories:Opera by composer, is that a diffusing category? Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)