Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
 


Characters by ethnicity and religion question[edit]

There are tons of categories relating to fictional characters ethnic background and some ethno-religious categories such as Category:Fictional Jews but the ones only for a characters religion seem to be non-existent. Category:Islam in fiction exists and categories for real life people such as Category:Muslims and Category:Former Muslims exists as well. Why have categories like Category:Fictional Muslims or Category:Fictional Christians been deleted? I don't mean to be argumentative I'm just kind of curious.★Trekker (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The deletion logs at the red links show the reason for the deletions. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 13#Fictional characters by religion and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 24#Category:Fictional characters by religion. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I know, but I don't really get the arguments. How by comparison are ethnic categories better?★Trekker (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@*Treker: Presumably ethnicity is easier to verify than religion, especially with fictional characters. Ethnicity is (usually) acquired by family relations, religion is acquired by belief. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: Personally I'd say it's the opposite, characters (just like real people) can be descendant of multiple ethnicities and be very unaware of them, on the other hand most characters who have a religion, (just like real people) usually tent to only subscribe to one in their lifetime. But I guess I'm in the minority with that oppinion. Thanks for answering either way.★Trekker (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Big House categories[edit]

Reggie.clever (talk · contribs) has created two categories, Category:Big House Publishing Artists and Category:Big House Companies, which are probably related - but has put them inside themselves, with no true parent categories. What would be suitable parents for these?

Since (what appears to be) a related article, Big House Publishing, has been created and deleted several times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big House Publishing), maybe these categories should be deleted too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Joe Satriani album covers[edit]

I was doing a bit of non-free image clean up when I noticed that the album cover art, etc. for stuff by Joe Satriani is categorized into Category:Album covers. I know that artists/bands often have sub-categories specific to them, so I created Category:Joe Satriani album covers, but I'm not sure if I did it correctly. Also, it seems as there was a Category:Joe Satriani which was CSD way back in 2007, but not sure if that means a category for the cover art shouldn't be created at all. Anyway, any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

categorization of List of types of killing[edit]

Editors interested in categorization are invited to comment at Talk:List of types of killing#Categories: Murder, Homicide as to whether List of types of killing should or should not be listed in the specific categories Category:Murder, Category:Suicide. I suggest that they ought not be, because the categories are far more specific than that article, but Hmains disagrees. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for additional opinions at Talk:Haavara Agreement[edit]

There is a question about inclusion of Category:Antisemitism in Haavara Agreement. Additional opinions at Talk:Haavara Agreement#Antisemitism Category would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you Igor Berger (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

seeking help with CATDEF issue[edit]

I hope this is the right place to post this. I'm seeking additional opinions regarding a dispute with another user over the proper categorization of an article, and the correct application (or not) of defining characteristics. If you can help, please weigh in at Talk:Full communion#Categorisation. Thank you in advance, Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute re duplication in child and parent categories[edit]

Hmains and I have an ongoing disagreement about categorisation, and I would appreciate other editors' input on the matter. The essence of the disagreement is that I have been removing articles (and categories) from parent and grandparent (etc) categories where the removed article has been duplicated in both a child and parent category. This removal is per WP:SUBCAT, which says, clearly and unambiguously (with my added emphasis here):

... an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category ...

In these cases the categories are not marked as {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} or {{All included}}. Hmains disagrees with these edits, and has been reverting them. Basroch refugee camp is a recent example. I removed it from Category:European migrant crisis because that category is a parent of Category:Calais migrant crisis (1999–present), which the article is in directly. Hmains reverted the edit. We have discussed the matter on my talk page [1][2][3] but we seem no closer to resolving the disagreement. In some cases Hmains has added {{All included}} when reverting my edits (see [4]), but has suggested that might not be the case in future [5][6].

Personally I do not think the duplication in child and parent categories is necessary in most cases - as SUBCAT says, they should be exceptions, not the norm - so I don't intend to add the {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} or {{All included}} every time I find duplications. However if an editor (Hmains or other) marks a category with the template then I won't intentionally remove the duplication. It appears though that Hmains is not inclined to add the templates either - only to revert my edits.

I'd like to hear the opinions of other editors, to help resolve this ongoing dispute. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to mention me. I too opposed your edits strongly. We even discussed this on my talkpage from the theoretical side of the issue along the same lines as you mentioned above. I countered your argument with two arguments of my own, and feel that there are more theoretical objections which as to yet I haven't been able to formulate precisely. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Your arguments appear to boil down to:
  • I actually agree with you.... — Thank you.
  • the imperfectness of the system shouldn't stop us from making the right decision in any individual case — I agree that WP:IAR exists, but exceptions should be "rare" and better justified. (For the purpose of this disucssion, an appropriate template on the category page would be "better justified".)
  • who am I to decide whether a category should be considered diffusing or non-diffusing — if you don't know whether a particular category should be an exception to the general rule of SUBCAT, then perhaps you should just to follow the general rule of SUBCAT - and not duplicate the categorization.
  • I am perfectly fine ... with categories being both, i.e. partially diffusing and partially non-diffusing ... — I don't think that "I don't care about the guideline" is a very compelling argument.
Mitch Ames (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You quoted me out of context. I agree with you that there is a problem. One guideline is very clear. The other leaves too much unspecified. WP:DUPCAT is not clear. Never has been. That is why we are here, to improve that guideline. So yes, "I disagree with the guideline" is an argument. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:SUBCAT is quite clear that "Apart from certain exceptions [which are well defined] an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication ... a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category"
WP:DUPCAT is quite clear that "Non-diffusing subcategories should be identified with a template on the category page".
What I think is not clear is under what circumstances a category should be non-diffusing. However I don't think that lack of clarity is the problem in this ongoing dispute. Currently if there is no non-diffusing template, I will generally assume that the default SUBCAT guideline of non-duplication applies. If someone adds a non-diffusing template then I won't remove the duplication. The problem is not whether or not a category should be non-diffusing, the problem is that Hmains is treating categories as non-diffusing even when there is nothing (no template) to suggest that they are non-diffusing, and not adding an appropriate template to indicate that the category should be non-diffusing. (As previously mentioned Hmains has added the templates in some cases, but does not appear inclined to do so consistently.) Thus we have one editor (Hmains) treating the category as non-diffusing even though it is not marked as such, and one editor (me) treating the category as diffusing because SUBCAT says that is the general rule (and there's no template marking the exception).
It seems to me that there are several possible solutions to this dispute:
  1. Categories diffuse by default unless they are marked as non-diffusing. This is consistent with the existing SUBCAT and DUPCAT. The onus is on editors who want the category to be non-diffusing to clearly indicate so by using the appropriate templates. This is my preferred option, because it is consistent with the existing guidelines.
  2. All editors are required to analyse all relevant categories and decide whether they should diffuse or not, before adding or removing any category duplication. I don't think this is feasible, because not all editors will reach the same conclusion every time, and it is contrary to DUPCAT's clear statement that "Apart from certain exceptions ... an article should be categorised ... without duplication ... a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category".
  3. We change SUBCAT, DUPCAT so that they do not say "Apart from certain exceptions ... an article should be categorised ... without duplication ... a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category". I don't think this is necessary, but those who feel it is the best solution are free to propose the change.
Other possible improvements (which won't fix the problem as described above, but might address Debresser's comments) that one might propose to the guidelines are:
Mitch Ames (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
"What I think is not clear is under what circumstances a category should be non-diffusing" That is precisely what I meant that WP:DUPCAT is not clear about.
I suddenly understood what the big problem is I have with your edits. The one which I mentioned above I wasn't able to formulate precisely. It is that although WP:DUPCAT says clearly that "Non-diffusing subcategories should be identified with a template on the category page", it does not say the opposite, that the lack of such a template is in itself proof that a category is diffusing. This is precisely the point that you have been pushing, and for which I (and perhaps others) have reverted you. Because such a rule does not exist, and your "I will generally assume" is an unjustified failure to use your head and positively determine from the nature of the categories in question whether they are or are not diffusing. Your claim that "This is consistent with the existing SUBCAT and DUPCAT." is a logical fallacy, with all due respect.
I therefore strongly reject option 1. With the present unclear criteria for "diffusing", only option 2 is a true description of the situation, but it has the problem which you mentioned, that it is hard for the individual editor, especially the less experienced one in the area of categories on Wikipedia, to make that determination. Option 3 simply avoids the issue. I think we should first try and see if we can elucidate the concept of a diffusing category a bit better, perhaps with several examples. If that fails, we can always implement option 3. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
it does not say ... that the lack of such a template is in itself proof that a category is diffusing
WP:CAT#Categorizing pages says:
"In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. ... if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C."
WP:SUBCAT says:
an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category"
WP:DUPCAT says:
Non-diffusing subcategories should be identified with a template on the category page:
The guidelines clearly and definitely say that categories are generally intended to diffuse, and that exceptions to that general rule "should be identified with a template". You say that the lack of a template does not prove that the category is diffusing, but there is no need to "prove" the diffusion - it's the clearly stated default, normal, and thus implied purpose of a category until indicated otherwise.
only option 2 is a true description of the situation, but ... it is hard for the individual editor, ... to make that determination — Those editors who feel that a category should be non-diffusing can easily resolve the problem by putting the appropriate template on the relevant categories, instead of complaining about the editors who pay some attention to the guidelines.
I think we should first try and see if we can elucidate the concept of a diffusing category a bit better, perhaps with several examples. – The concept is already well defined in WP:CAT and I have repeatedly quoted the relevant sections of it. We can discuss some guidelines about how to decide whether a particular category should be non-diffusing or all-included - but in the meantime we have a perfectly good and acceptable method of indicating that intent, by simply applying the appropriate template. Surely it's not so hard to just use that method.
Mitch Ames (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't choose to write much, but Debresser has clearly stated the problems with the MOS (which may not be solvable), with Mitch Ames edits, and why such edits are inherently disruptive to the category system and why they should be stopped. This situation involves not only non-diffusing categories but also 'all included' ones--which a reading of the category contents will show all included is the intent of the various editors who populated the category even if no one along the way ever added the 'all included' template. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Precisely. The guideline notwithstanding, all these templates were never added systematically, so their absence is not prove of anything. Nor should it be, as I explained above. Debresser (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is little point in having a rule at WP:SUBCAT if editors are free to violate it at will. And so I agree with Mitch Ames -- categories are diffusing unless the community has decided otherwise. And given the potentially large number of articles that might be affected by changing a category's status from "diffusing" to "non-diffusing", those non-diffusion templates shouldn't be added without a community discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thta point of view is not supported by the guideline. To the contrary, the guideline implies to leave that decision up to individual editors. And in general, try to minimize Wikipedia:Rulecruft. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like it's time to improve the guideline in this respect, to make it less ambiguous. Avoiding rulecruft is good when most people naturally understand the rules in a similar way but not if they understand them differently or even in an opposite way. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like I am late to the party and run the risk of not knowing what I am talking about but I remain incredibly frustrated at the removal of categories from the articles I create and edit. My reasoning is simple-minded. I want readers to find the information that they need from the source of 'all human knowledge'. I am not concerned one bit about redundancy. Sometimes the only way an article is related to another is very general in nature-a broad category. The very same article is also part of a very specific category....or two broad categories. I am also concerned that when I have registered my concerns about the whole philosophy of this project, some category editor goes to my editing history (as if it were an invitation) to ream out my categorizations. This has happened more than once: I disagree with the removal of a category from an article and leave a congenial message on the category editor's talk page questioning the deletion. Minutes afterwards I see dozens of categories removed (content deletion and the deletion on my contributions to the encyclopedia) by the editor who probably didn't like my message even though I usually pretty nice. Doggone it! What is the harm in having too many categories?? Because I have left this message here you are all invited to watch almost all the categories removed from my articles by some category editor who doesn't like this post on this discussion page. Here, let me make it easier for you. Here is the list of articles that I have created. Have a go. Slice and dice. Find the parents, delete them and leave the children. You know what to do. What the heck, I'm joining the project and work that way.
Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   10:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OCAWARD[edit]

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dispute without discussion[edit]

User:Zingvin keeps adding history categories to finance articles, see e.g. the edit history of Stock market since 23 February and see the current content of Category:Economic history of the Netherlands. I've told them on their talk page not to do this, but they don't react and just keep going on. What is the best action to proceed? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • This is no longer applicable, the user has been blocked. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Meeting facilitation formats[edit]

I'd like to see a category for meeting formats. I don't have much experience in categorization, so I thought I would propose it here first. I was prompted by the list I stumbled upon at Unconference#Facilitation styles. I considered Category:Meeting facilitation, but some relevant formats, such as World Café, don't involve a facilitator in the same way as others. How about Category:Meeting formats? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)