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.


What is the best way to categorize alumni so that there is a clickable link in the main article for the school? I have been using the first method, but in the past others have removed it, saying the school is not an alumni. Of course it isn't, it is there to be the header for the category list and provide a clickable way to get to the list from the school page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • "Category:Don Bosco Preparatory High School alumni| " Add the alumni category to the school and add a blank so when sorted it appears at the top of the list?
  • ":Category:Don Bosco Preparatory High School alumni" Add the category with a colon to the see also section?
  • "Category:Don Bosco Preparatory High School" Create a supercategory that will only contain the supracategory "Category:Don Bosco Preparatory High School alumni"?

If I understand your question, you're wondering how to properly link the alumni category within the article on the school, correct? #2 is the only acceptable option of the three you've listed, and you should also use {{cat main}} on the category's description page to link back to the school article. If there is also a standalone alumni list as well as an alumni category (and please don't use confuse us by using "list" to refer to the contents of a category), then that list should be categorized by the alumni category with a blank sortkey, and then include a link to the list in the school article. postdlf (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. I agree that #2 is the way to go, though I would say the backlinking from the category should be with {{cat more}} rather than {{cat main}} (since calling something a "main article" for a category could imply that it too should be in the category, which would imply the approach set out in #1). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No columns anymore?[edit]

There used to be three columns on category pages, but now i only see one at Category:Bandy clubs by year of establishment, which makes it strange. Am I the only one to see this? Is it a problem with my browser? (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess so, since I'm not seeing this. Herostratus (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I see three columns in Firefox but you are not alone. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Have categories been messed with? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit]

Hi, when adding categories to articles, should we be adding categories that aren't literal? For instance, here a category was added for "People from Bristol" in an article that is about a website run by a person from Bristol. The website obviously is not a person. I've seen this sort of thing before, for instance where there might be a robot character in a cartoon series, and a "Robots in fiction" category might be added. The series is not a robot. Can someone help spoonfeed this to me? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Basically no. People categories should only be in articles (or redirects) for people. Now, if there is a section in that article on the person then maybe, but in that case I prefer the redirect for categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
People categories generally have names that support what you call a literal reading. Keepers of those categories commonly exclude even lead articles (as Bristol, England is not in People from Bristol).
What Category:Robots in fiction needs, however, is not the exclusion of such as the unnamed series article in favor of articles about fictional robots. We have Category:Fictional robots for articles about robots. Rather, {Robots in fiction} needs a substantial preface --to "spoonfeed" visitors. We may need a robot to find and speedily delete category pages that are created with template {{popcat}} alone.
Note, cat Robots in fiction does prominently show subcat Fictional robots, and it is a subcat of Fiction by topic. The correct reading of the pagename may even be literal, although it is not the only literal reading.
--P64 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Exceptions to subcat[edit]

WP:SUBCAT currently says "ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also" and (very reasonably) an editor has asked for clarification. An example of where this applies is Category:British military personnel of World War II - it is (via several intermediate categories) under Category:British people, but there are a few people (example) who were in the British military but were not a British person. This seems a reasonable exception to me. Has anybody got any good other examples and/or ideas about how to explain this simply in the guideline ? Note: The discussion immediately above this and the (now archived) recent long discussion are also concerned with SUBCAT. DexDor (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Please rewrite the Eponymous section[edit]

About Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous_categories. I still can do not understand the explanation as it is given. Maybe more examples could help (including red don'ts), from a simple set. I can point to these confusing elements for sure:

"their corresponding articles": 'their' can mean multiple nouns, and why plural?
"take a category": no category is 'taken' AFAIK (a category is added). If this is colloquial language, please replace it.
"however, many categories" - I'm lost again. Plural, contradiction, implicit meaning: all not clarifying. -DePiep (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep, the section is talking about its difficulties; there is a natural tendency to think of a category A as a concrete thing 'a', but it's not.

'A's "their corresponding articles" == 'a's
"take a category", such as A, is another way of saying 'for example, A'
"however, many categories ('A's)" is trying to be general, to avoid saying a specific, such as category:Barack Obama

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This too I do not understand. But I am not asking to explain it here to me. I'd like to see the guideline itself be understandable. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: How about this? SFB 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • An eponymous category should have all the categories of its parent article, with the exception of categories that describe the main article but do not fit well with the broader content immediately in the eponymous category. For example, the article American football is in Category:1869 introductions, but the content of Category:American football is broadly not material related to "1869 introductions", so it should not be used on the eponymous category. In comparison, the contents do fit well within the topic of Category:Ball games, which is used both on the main article and its eponymous category.
Yes, an improvement for this detail. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Allow me:
An eponymous category is ... (example: cat:NY)
Normally, cat:NY would not be added to "NY state", because [parent cat reason].
But an eponymous cat should be mentioned (added), because ...
DePiep (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep, Ancheta Wis: The top detail is already in our first sentence. I think using the George Bush category example first is slightly misleading as personal categories have their own, separate issues. If we merge this section into the first eponymous section with your above bullet point method, Is this an improvement? :
A category which covers exactly the same topic as an article is known as an eponymous category for that article (e.g. New York City and Category:New York City, Mekong and Category:Mekong River).
An eponymous category should have all the categories of its parent article, with the exception of categories that describe the main article but do not fit well with the broader content immediately in the eponymous category. For example:
SFB 19:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Bush is bad example (because of distractions/associations and "W." addition). If NYC fits, I'd stick to that one (over Mekong). IMO, for good description we need the Football/1889 example to be NY too. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: Mekong is a good example to keep as it shows that the same topic might not necessarily have the same name in category space. I've amended the above to a New York example, but I've actually had to change the article and category to apply the guideline! The New York area category structure is as labyrinthine as the city itself. In some ways, New York is hardly the easiest example either. American football or FIFA World Cup would be much more straight forward. Anyway - Do you think the updated version is good to go? SFB 19:47, 27 March 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)