Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Category pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Layout

[edit]

After looking this over, it looks like it's trying to re explain WP:CAT in a different way, while leaving out the "organisation/tree/subcatting" aspect of the guideline page.

To illustrate:

Imagine if this page was broken up into the following sections:

Might not be a bad idea to discuss a reOrg of the categorisation page itself to better present/explain these things. - jc37 02:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did the ReOrg of WP:CAT. - jc37 06:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So this page can stay focused on the category pages as it seems to so far. - jc37 15:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After or before project categories, we might also want a section on stub categories and on template/nav-box categories? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote that section, I was looking at this page as a replacement of WP:CAT. at this point, this is just about the category pages, since WP:CAT already covers categorisation.
I'm not entirely sold that this should be separate from WP:CAT, but I'm willing to give it a try. Among other things, it gives the opportunity to allow us all to discuss this in a whiteboard kind of way, without doing so with the "live" policy page. - jc37 02:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some basics

[edit]

To start off, here are some of what I consider common practice on category pages. I welcome your thoughts on this:

  • Banner templates explaining category scope and usage.
  • navigational templates, such as TOC, and topical navboxes (or even just a bulleted list of links).
  • hatnotes like see also
  • cross wiki nav boxes, such as to commons.

I'm intentionally staying general and vague to start with. What have I missed? : ) - jc37

Don't be shy

[edit]

I have made a few more tweaks. Feel free to revert, edit, strikeout any of the content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of templates/images in categories

[edit]

From this it looks like there is a disagreement about whether miscellaneous templates or images can be used in categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jc37 deleted it with the edit summary of "too general as a prohibition. navigation templates are allowed, and should in some cases be encouraged. Category space is all about enhancing navigation.". Firstly, this is a Manual of Style and as far as I read it there it a far lower need to follow it religiously, i.e. the word "should" is only a suggestion. In terms of strength from highest to lowest importance for adherence it goes: policy -> guidelines -> MOS. So lets leave the text there until we get more feedback. I will dig up some samples to illustrate my point. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline - And since this is still in proposal mode, not a huge deal, I suppose.
As for the statements, sidebar templates are indeed sometimes used. The navbox-like ones in particular.
As for "footer", depends. (And what would one call a TOC template?)
Which was my point, the prohibition was too general as stated.
And asserting that MoS pages are no big deal doesn't work. we've even recently had some arbcomm cases related to them. these pages are to reflect common practice, not the other way round. So what we shouldn't be doing is trying to use this to push a POV. - jc37 02:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken on the deadline but having a timeframe will prevent the interminable discussion that happens on talk pages.
  • Maybe this is more guideline related but I see no need for footer and sidebar style templates. The links on the actual category page, the pages listed in the category, and the subcategories should be sufficient linking. Footer and sidebar templates are unneeded clutter.
  • A TOC template is not a footer or a sidebar template.
  • Point taken on the arbcomm case and MOS reflecting common practice but I think it is good to be proactive and "force" something that improves WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of unnecessary temples:

  • Category:Logic - a template (currently up for deletion) that is "clutter" and contains repetition of links already on the page.
  • Category:Stars - a HUGE footer template
  • Category:Clippers - another footer. At least this one is collapsed

Related:

We should not try to link everything everywhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure that we need to say anything about this issue in the manual of style. I've seen a fair number of footer templates and the like in categories, so it seems relatively common. Templates are generally placed on any page that the template links to, and often there is a link to the category on the template, so it is a consistent way of applying it in such cases. Anyway, I don't think we need to try to use a MOS about categories to "'force' something" one way or another, as stated—and whether these templates are an improvement to WP or not when they are included in categories is a debateable or subjective point at best. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we say that templates that facilitate category navigation are allowed or encouraged for large trees? And that templates that facilitate article navigation are strongly discouraged. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess by trees you mean a high hierarchy? Wikipedia categories are not trees - they are an ecosystem!
What the category system looks like.
The really neat, simple up/down though the categories and sideways to articles does not need templates to clutter up the place. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to "fetishize" neatness—what constitutes "clutter" has always been a matter of some opinion (as indicated by extensive debates about what constitutes "category clutter" on articles). One reader's clutter could be another reader's highly useful navigational tool. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of web usability and related topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the concept, Alan. I'm just not convinced that what constitutes "neatness" vs. "clutter" is an objective measure; even if it were, I'm not convinced that we should push the concept through a MOS, since that's the opposite way the MOS is supposed to function. Ideally, a MOS reflects general usage that is accepted by consensus; it's not intended to dictate these things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is time that we start being proactive with the building of WP structure rather than letting it develop organically and haphazardly and then fixing it all up at a later stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that goes to the very core of the issue that I'm trying to highlight—what constitutes "neatness" vs. "clutter" is not an objective measure, so being proactive in building it in a way you prefer is not necessarily the only correct way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above I've removed "...footer or sidebar templates". I'm going to try to edit the section to more reflect common practice. - jc37 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cat main

[edit]

I have mixed feelings about the use of {{Cat main}}. In many cases having the main article listed first is sufficient. In fact for cases where the only header text is the template it seems like overkill. I have even seen cases where the template was used and the article was not included in the category! Add to that the fact that it is not uncommon for the template to be pointing at a redirect which is really confusing. This template may have outlived its usefulness in many cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say that I am a big fan of {{Cat main}} but you do raise a good point about redundancy of it in certain cases. If the category article is not present that is wrong and should be corrected. Going to a redirect is not too much of a problem as long as the target article is 100% related to the category. I guess where there are small numbers of subcats in a category AND there is a main article then {{Cat main}} is a little redundant. Having two links with the same target in close proximity with one being bolded is not very good practice for maintaining web usability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I generally think {{Cat main}} (or {{Cat more}}, when appropriate) is good to use in almost all categories. I think in most cases no "category definition" is required if the {{Cat main}} is used. The fact that some users fail to add the "main article" itself to the category seems like a good reason to continue to encourage its use—if the article is not placed in the category, at least we retain a link to it until the situation can be "repaired". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of or failure to link to the main article should not be seen as a reason to use or not use {{Cat main}} or {{Cat more}}. If the article is missing readers cannot get to the category from the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, no—but from a practical standpoint, it does have a benefit vis-a-vis the common problem highlighted by Vegaswikian. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not come across many instances of the main article being missing. I do however regularly come across a lack of a space as the sort order. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the latter is probably more common, but I have encountered the "missing main article" reasonably regularly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be something that a bot could both find and fix. I will talk to the boffins over in the Bot Dept. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I almost think I would rather see a bot fix the sort order. Adding main articles would also be nice, but that may be a bit trickier since just doing a name search in article space may not always produce the correct article. A list of categories without a main article listed might be more useful, but I wonder how long it would be. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled across Category:Dark sky parks. It had {cat main} and it was a redir to the main article. That, and the lack of categories meant that it was inaccurate, confusing and redundant. I deleted it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should be one or the other. Having the eponymous article categorised isn't always appropriate. And that doesn't even get into times where the eponymous article may have been merged to be part of another article or always has been part of another article. Our goal should always be to enhance navigation. And in that, some redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing.

All that aside, we should write this so it can stand alone without reference to how something is categorised in the category. This page should be strictly limited to what is placed in the editing window when editing a category page. The idea is to try to keep the concepts separate. For one thing I have hopes that this may help reduce the all too common confusion between creation of a category through the technical aspects of categorisation (by adding a bracketed category name to a page) and the creation of a category page through the typical editing process. WP:CAT covers the former, and the hope is that this page will cover the latter.

This will also be nice in that it should semantically bring the editing of category pages more clearly under the various editing process policies and guidelines. For example, another common confusion is that - believe it or not - editing a category isn't editing. Leading to WP:OWN situations among many other things) - jc37 14:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I have removed "templates containing links that are a repetition of the category contents (with the exception of {{Cat main}}, which should be used on most categories) - jc37 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of the views expressed above. {{Cat main}} should be used on nearly every category that has a suitable main article. Redundancy with the article's appearance in the category is simply not a problem. Redundancy in navigation aids is often a good thing. Cat main is important because it is more approachable to readers, who may not know to look for an article appearing at the top of the list, above "A". (This is not self-evident.)--Srleffler (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

Ok. I removed all references to what should be categorised in the category (as beyond the scope of this page). And also removed all comments concerning "clutter", since that is very subjective and is of course unenforceable. (And as an aside, would confuse people who hear how WP:OC is "category clutter".)

I added surrounding explanatory text concerning the purpose of categories and how the main purpose of the category page is to help convey the scope and intended purpose of the category in question, and to help associated navigation through the use of various templates such as catmain.

I don't think that any of this should be contentious, as it is clearly common practice. Though I welcome discussion on it. The text does need further expansion though. - jc37 15:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also merged in the text from Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating_category_pages. - jc37 16:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not want to see on category pages

[edit]

Let's tackle discussing this directly.

Please list what you personally don't want to see on category pages, and explain whether you think this is common practice or if you would just like consensus to change on this. - jc37 16:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that generally images are unnecessary on category pages unless they are incidental to a portal link or a template that is added. It's not common to add images to categories, but I have occasionally seen it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we exempt those images that are in templates, I agree. Is there a clear way to describe the clip art-looking notice images in templates? - jc37 15:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure that clip art-looking images could be defined. But if the image is in a template, is it our call on how appropriate it is? Adding 'Images are generally not allowed on category pages except for those that are within a template appropriate for use on a category page' should be sufficent. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds good to me. - jc37 20:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Going from "unnecessary" to "generally not allowed" is a big leap. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. If there is consensus that they are unnecessary, why would they need to be generally allowed? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It depends on the definition of "necessary". I can imagine that an image could be helpful to some. It also depends on how strictly minimalist category pages are to be held. I've never felt an urge to illustrate a category page, but I sure don't see a simple illustration as something to be outlawed. What I would like to see more on category pages is a brief statement or paragraph stating its intended function and scope, and something on any subcategorisation, and wherever possible, direct reference to a parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the "generally" part of the wording takes care of any possible exceptions. With guidelines, the important thing is to set a general standard, and exceptions are dealt with case-by-case. Only rarely do guidelines absolutely prohibit things, and I don't think saying something is "generally not allowed" would be any different. The word "allowed" could simply be changed to something like "added" if it rubs readers the wrong way somehow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd support "discouraging" illustrations etc where it may start down the path of looking like a pseudo-article. However, is this an actual problem? I thought the biggest problem was excessive and ill-conceived categories? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't think it has to be a "problem" to include it in the guidelines. If everyone follows this practice, then that's a good sign that there is consensus on the matter, and the MOS is supposed to reflect consensus and practice. I don't feel we shouldn't be adding things to the MOS to "enforce" a solution to a problem that exists. This section was sitting dormant for awhile so I decided to get the ball moving with a topic that I thought would have broad consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. The basic information should take no more than a small fraction of the screen. That category is combining a fully fledged list and a fully fledge template, and this is too much. It is making the category page into a pseudo-mainspace page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BHG proposal

[edit]

I favour a minimalist approach to category pages. Less is more!

In a nutshell, a category page should be treated as a form of signpost. In general, the less information it contains, the better it serves its purpose of assisting quick and easy navigation.

Categories are for quick navigation, and all extra material on the page has two adverse effects:

Should include
  • A {{cat main}} link to the category's head article, if one exists, or a
  • A brief description of the category's purpose, which should rarely exceed one line. It should contain only the minimum of information required to explain the scope of category to the general, non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written.

Examples of description line for Category:People from Glossop

Description Rating Comment
People from Glossop Very poor Simply restates titles, without a link to the head article, and adds no context. It adds nothing except duplicate text, so it is worse than useless.
People from Glossop Poor Restates title, but links to head article for clarification. However, the lack of bolding makes the link hard to spot
People from Glossop Good Links to head article, and bolding makes the link prominent ... but where in the universe is Glossop?
People from Glossop, a town in Derbyshire, England Very good Links to head article, bolding makes the link prominent, and the few extra words on the location will save readers from having to open up the article to get basic location info.
People from Glossop, a market town in the High Peak district of Derbyshire, England. It had a population of 32,0000 in the 2001 census Poor 3 superfluous links distract the eye from the important one (i.e. Glossop), and the details on the census belong in the article. There is no ambiguity, so the district is probably superfluous.
May include
  • Portal boxes. These are compact links to related material, which take up little space
  • "See also" link(s) to related category/ies. These can be bulky and distracting, and should be used only if the category's cope may be readily confused with that of other categories
  • A link to related material on Commons
  • For categories by year, a navigation bar linking to other categories in the series (e.g. Category:1870 in Ireland or Category:1995 in cricket
Should NOT include
  • External links. There may occasionally be circumstances where a link to an external source helps define the scope of the category, but these are rare.
Must NOT include
  • Substantive content. Content belongs in articles or in lists, not on category pages.
  • Footnotes or references. These are devices to allow the reader to authenticate content, but a category must not be used for substantive content.
  • Images, except for the tiny images displayed as part of portal links. Images add visual height and increase page-loading times, and do not assist navigation
  • Navigation templates containing sets of articles. Such templates belong on articles, not in categories.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with all of the above except: Categories are designed for navigation, so having related navboxes merely enhances navigation. And, I'm not sure if you specifically note this (and I missed it), but the clarifying banner templates (like diffusion) also should be kept.
Incidentally, these both have been re-affirmed by recent discussions at tfd.
Oh and as you note (by external links), there may be rare exceptions to the restrictions laid out above.
Otherwise, nicely explained/presented : ) - jc37 20:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree that the the clarifying banner templates (like diffusion) should be kept. I had forgotten them when writing the draft, and it's great that you spotted the omission.
As to navboxes, I'm not sure what you mean. For example, are you suggesting that Category:France should include Template:France topics? Can you think of any other examples that may illustrate what you have in mind? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, that's going to be a problem to define. Some kinds of nabovbox templates will be appropriaste and some not-so-much. I think that the problem lies more with "navigation template" being such a broad term.
We shouldn't disinclude navigation-intended topical lists (regardless of whether they are formatted into template form, or merely edited to the page), but full blown multi-topical navboxes on a broad topic like France, would seem to be a touch of overkill. I welcome suggestions on how to define this. - jc37 14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I would want to discourage topical lists of articles. To my mind, topical lists of categories can be very helpful, but article templates on category pages mix two navigational metaphors, and overload the category page and makes it harder to find relevant categories.
As an example of a category navigation template, see {{Great Britain MP categories header}}, in use at Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain and sub-cats. I had forgotten that I created that one, but it seems to me to work well by illustrating a complex bit of the category tree without overloading the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking specifically of this Template:Category-Logic/header.
I think you may be close to convincing me about limiting article links.
I think besides "cat main" (or some text-version of it), allowing for a top-level link might be a good idea. for example, some mathematical concept which is part of a broader concept. I think we should obviously be able to link to the broader concept article. Or even to related articles, to be able to show how this fits in the broader concept. The purpose being to get editors to be able to click the links to read about the concepts, and not to duplicate content, obviously. The same thing might apply to political science concepts, etc. - jc37 21:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. So, BHG, you'd agree that this is an improvement to a category page? (From the page name, I might have guessed that they were dinosaurs). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joe, that is definitely an improvement, because it explains the category to those of us who don't speak Latin. But to my eye this is even better: less text, same info. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. Ten words. Very good. I had just lifted the lead sentence from the head article (sometimes called "parent article"?), something that might improve many category pages.

        Are we looking at wanting to deprecate Template:Cat main in favour of a simple sentence with the main article bolded and linked? I agree that wikilinking "insects" is overlinking, but that order should remain linked, because it is a technical use of a common word, which many readers won't be familiar with.

        I considered whether a picture should be included. Pictures are pleasant to see, and can immediately clarify unusual topics. However, they consume height as you say, and a small picture of an insect says little more than the text "Plecoptera are ... insects". The same and other images are immediately obtainable by clicking on the main article link. I can also imagine disputes about what is the best, clearest or most inconic image, which is the sort of discussion that belongs in the article history and not in the history of a category page. So, I'm tending to agree that generally, images shoud be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk)

        • Joe, glad we agree on that example! I also thought that "insects" was a common word which didn't need linking, but that the specialised use of "order" did require linking.
          As to {{Cat main}}, my thought so far as is that {{Cat main}} is a very useful way of rapidly providing some info to a category, but that it will usually be better to write a sentence fragment. For example, I recently created Category:Council elections in Lewisham with a {{cat main}} so that it looked like this, but I think that this revision is much more informative. Similarly, this change to Category:Abraham Lincoln is more informative and hardly any longer.
          I think we have a similar take on images. I cam imagine that there may be some rare cases where an image is so extraordinarily useful that it genuinely helps navigation, but I can't think of an example. Do you think that the deprecation of images would be better moved from "must not" to "should not"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the exception I'm thinking of concerning images would be where it is illustrative of a "concept" rather than just an image of some person, creature, object, or location.
And besides that, sometimes it's easier to show "connectivity" of concepts for navigation purposes through imagery than through a template or list. (I know I've seen them, but atm, I'm not remembering where.) - jc37 15:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts

[edit]

After discussing this above, I think the place where I'm thinking that the "general" prohibitions suggested so far shouldn't apply would be in regards to concepts (that which one could not reach out and "touch").

Perhaps we should just have a "special case" section concerning concepts? - jc37 21:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portals

[edit]

Often on category pages there is {{portal}} as well as an entry as a page and, if it exists, a portal subdirectory. Having a portal subdirectory is fine but having the page entry is redundant. It is also often "link clutter" around the all important eponymous article link. Examples: Category:Foods, Category:Environment. This is mainly applicable to cases here the portal and the category are the same name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should not rely on what may or may not be in the category when determining navigation links on the category page. In particular things which have special sortkeys like portals, templates, etc., or things which are typically sorted to the top of the category (through a space or an asterisk as a sortkey), again like portals (as is shown in your examples), or even linking to a related eponymous list. - jc37 22:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot?

[edit]

This should probably be restarted, since a) it was worked up into a form that seems non-controversial, b) if it actually reflects standard practice, there won't be any difficulty getting an RfC at WT:MOS to adopt it as part of MoS (see how many MoS pages there already are), and c) because this stalled, matters have gotten worse, with all kinds of huge template-cruft atop categories now, and sometimes substantial content. Just the other day, I found an entire Wikipedia essay embedded in a category page (since moved to WP:Rouge editors).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish If you still are interested in it, I agree it should definitely be restarted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: I am, but am also swamped with work and other projects, so my WP time is limited for a while. Probably no harm is just working on it (without radically changing it), especially to resolve any issues above, and then see if other people become interested, perhaps after replacing the template with a draft/proposal template (I think there's one at MOS:LIFE and MOS:GLOSSARIES you can use), and "advertising" the page at WT:MOS, WT:CAT, WT:CFD and so forth for more input.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update text about category TOC

[edit]

From the MOS: A maximum of 200 category entries are displayed per screen. To make navigating large categories easier, a table of contents can be used on the category page - e.g. {{Category TOC}} displays a table of contents (Top, 0–9, A–Z).

We should consider updating this for {{CatAutoTOC}} —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Category_pages&oldid=1242581723"